Financial Tunes

What Do You Know About American Century Investments? I'm applying for a job there (in Kansas City) and would like information I can include in my cover letter ... information you can't find on their website or on Wikipedia. Thanks.

American Century Investment versus Fidelity? I have a 401K with JP Morgan to which I'm no longer contributing because I'm not at my old job anymore. I want to take some money out of it but not all. Things may get tight at the end of the year so my best option is to roll it to an IRA. JP Morgan recommended their partner American Century Investments. I was thinking about Fidelity or one of those TV advertised places. What do you suggest? How's American Century? Any better options for a 25 yr-old full-time grad student working a part-time job (not that it makes a difference)? I can't contribute right now because I'm in an internship without benefits that pays little so I'll wait for next year to start contributing again when I get a full-time job. Thanks.

Are American Century mutual funds a good investment? I am 25 and make less than $20,000 a year. I would like to invest in one of American Century's mutual funds and sell it in 3 to 6 years. Your opinion?

IRS got 1099 on a Gift Trust I cashed in. Taxes were paid on interest but 1099 includes principal. What's up? My parents put in $200 a month in a "Gift Trust" with American Century Investments for 10 years. When it matured, I cashed it in and filed a schedule K-1 with my taxes. Now, I year later, IRS sends me a notice that I owe them about $6,000 in tax and $2,000 in interest and penalties because American Century sent in a 1099-B stating I had earning from sale of stock for over $26,000. The tax on gains was paid during the find and the rest was the principal which was a gift. What can I do to show IRS I don't owe them because the amount I received is within the allowable amount for a gift?

WHich of these companies should I start a 403 b in ? I trying to decided which of these companies would be the best choice for starting a 403 B in and why? Here is the list you help is greatly needed. Acacia Life Insurance Company AIG Annuity Insurance Company AIG VALIC American Century Investments American Fidelity Assurance Company "American Funds Distributors, Inc. (AFD)" American United Life (AUL) Americo Financial Life & Annuity Insurance Cmpy Ameriprise Financial Inc. Ameritas Life Insurance Company Annuity Investors Life Insurance Company "AXA Advisors, LLC" AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company CalSTRS Cambridge Investment Research Conseco Insurance Company Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Com. First Investors Corporation (TDS Umbrella) First Investors General Authorization Form Franklin Templeton Investments "FTJ FundChoice, LLC" "Great American Advisors, Inc., Member NASD" Great American Life Insurance Company Great Southern Life Insurance Company "GWN Securities, Inc" Horace Mann Companies "Industrial-Alliance Pacific Life Ins Co, US Branch" ING Life Insurance & Annuity Company ING-ReliaStar Life Insurance Company Jackson National Life Ins. Co. "Legend Group, Inc., The" Life Investors Company Life Insurance Company of the Southwest "Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins Co (Lincoln Fin Grp), The" MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut Metropolitan Life Insurance Midland National Modern Woodmen of America National Health Insurance Co (NHIC) New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp. North American Company for Life and Health "Oppenheimer Funds Distributor, Inc" Pacific Life Insurance Company PFS Investments Inc PlanMember Services Corp Principal Mutual Funds Putnam Investments RSG Securities Security Benefit Group State Farm Symetra Life Insurance Company Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Thrivent Investment Management Inc. Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company "Transamerica Fund Services, Inc." United Teacher Associates Insurance Company USAA Investment Management Company USAA Life Insurance Company Vanguard ISA Vanguard Plan Authorization "Veritrust® Financial, L.L.C." "Waddell & Reed, Inc" Washington National Insurance Company Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio

Briefly explain 3 ways FDRs legacy influences American life in the 21st century. Below are 3 ways:? 1. Road and Public Works 2. Safer Investments 3. Minimum Wage

Which is the best investment option my 401K offers? I can distribute my contributions between: -Met Life Stable Value -Vanguard LifeStrategy Conservative Growth Fund -Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund -Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund -Fidelity Equity-Income Fund -Vanguard Institutional Index Fund -Institutional shares -American Century Ultra Fund - Institutional class -American Century Value Fund - Institutional class -T. Rowe Price Mid - cap growth fund -Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund - class A -Pioneer Growth Opportunities Fund - class A -American FundsSM EuroPacific Growth Fund - class R5 -Lowe's Stock Or i can put 100% in any of listed above. I'm new to stocks, investments so I would appreciate your advice. Bottom line in what should i invest?

Which of the following statements about the late nineteenth century is TRUE? a The government saw itself as responsible for the day to day welfare of American citizens b The population of the United States continued to fall until 1870 when the numbers began to grow c Incorporation threatened businessmen who became increasingly cautious about business investments d The Patent Office experienced a sharp rise in the number of patent applications e The United States economy managed to avoid any depressions or panics

which of the fallowing statements are TRUE about the late 19th century? 1) the gov. saw itself responsible for the day to day welfare of american citizens 2) the population of the USA continued to fall until 1870 when it began to rise again 3) incorporation threatened businesses who became increasingly cautious about Business investments 4) the Patent Office experienced a sharp rise in thee number of patent applicants. 5) the U.S economy managed to avoid any depressions or panics which of the fallowing would be most strong in opposition to the way in which the U.S gov. used the Sherman-Anti Trust Act in the latter years of the 19th century? 1) Eugene V. Debs 2) George Pullman 3) John D. Rockefeller 4) Richard Olney 5) E.C. Knight

On this list do you have any idea how i should allocate my 401K funds? Right now i have it set for 50% Jennison Value A and 50% Security Mid Cap A. I've been getting good returns, but would you recommend something else. If you don't feel like looking through all the investments below, than could you just give me some advice on how i should set it up. Thanks. ABN AMRO Income Plus AIM Capital Development AIM Developing Markets AIM Small Cap Growth American Century Equity Growth American Century Intl Bond Aston/Optimum Mid Cap Aston/TAMRO Small Cap Baron Asset Baron Small Cap Dreyfus Premier Strat Value Dreyfus Premier Struct Midcap Dreyfus S&P 500 Stock Index Federated Bond Fidelity Advisor Dvsfd Intl Fidelity Advisor Real Estate Janus Adv Growth and Income Janus Adv Intl Growth Jennison 20/20 Focus Jennison Natural Resources Jennison Value Legg Mason Global HY Bond Marsico Growth Neuberger Berman Socially Resp PIMCO Real Return PIMCO Total Return Royce Value RS Technology RS Partners RS Value Security Mid Cap Value TRP Global Stock TRP Growth Stock TRP Intl Growth & Income TRP Retirement 2010 TRP Retirement 2020 TRP Retirement 2030 TRP Retirement 2040 TRP Retirement 2050 TRP Retirement Income Van Kampen Comstock Van Kampen Equity and Income Wells Fargo Advtg SmCp Value

401(k) help!? I'm about to enroll in my company's 401(k) plan. They match 50% up to a 6% contribution. I would like to contribute 6%, but I'm about to have to start paying off my student loans, which will be quite a big payment, so I don't know if I can afford it. But I guess my bigger question is how to allocate my investments, since I have no idea where to start. Here are my options: The target date retirement funds (I probably won't go with this) AmCent Strategic Allocation: Aggressive, Conservative, and Moderate (I may go with this b/c it would be simple to just put 100% into this single fund and not have to worry about splitting it all up into funds I don't know anything about) Fixed Interest: AUL Fixed interest account Cash: OneAmerica Money market Short term govt bond: Vanguard short term federal Large cap value: Fidelity VIP equity income Large cap blend: SSgA S&P 500 flagship Large cap growth: American Century Ulta, Fidelity VIP contrafund (continued) T. Rowe Price growth stock Mid cap value: OneAmerica value Mid cap blend: Ariel, Ariel Appreciation Mid cap growth: T. Rowe price mid cap growth Small cap blend: SSgA Russell 2000 index strategy Small cap growth: Vanguard explorer Foreign Growth: Amcent Int'l growth Oh, forgot to add - I'm 23 years old, but would rather be more "moderate" than aggressive

Which Investment Company would be Best for a 403.B and a 457.B & why? Which Investment Company would be Best for a 403.B and a 457.B & why? TIAA-CREF or American Century

US HISTORY STUDYGUIDE PLEASE PLEASE HELP? 16. What was one of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony's goals? (Points: 5) Gain immediate women's suffrage. Allow men to advocate for women's suffrage. Achieve voting rights in selected states. Gain voting rights in exchange for restricting some employment opportunities for women. 17. Which amendment gave women the right to vote? (Points: 5) 19th 18th 17th 16th 18. What was one argument against nineteenth-century American imperialism? (Points: 5) Traditional American principles traditionally opposed colonization. Social Darwinism meant that America would be superior without imperialism. America had sufficient sources of raw materials so there was no need for imperialism. The U.S. Army was too small to be effective overseas. 19. The explosion on the USS Maine and yellow journalism contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain in 1898. What was another factor? (Points: 5) preventing Spain from attacking the United States a treaty agreement with England protecting U.S. investments in Cuba stopping Cuba from nationalizing U.S. businesses 20. What was one provision of the treaty that ended the Spanish-American War? (Points: 5) The island of Hispaniola became a U.S. territory. Spain agreed to pay reparations to the United States. The Philippines became a U.S. territory. Panama gave permission for the United States to build a canal there. 21. What was one of Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy goals? (Points: 5) to establish undisputed borders so wars would be less likely to restore an isolationist philosophy to U.S. foreign policy to gain additional territory through purchases and land agreements in southeast Asia to have the nations of the world form an association 22. What was one effect of unrestricted German submarine attacks on shipping in World War I? (Points: 5) British and French supplies never reached their troops. The United States led the Berlin Airlift. The German navy became the most powerful naval force in the world. The United States entered the war. 23. How did policies of isolationism and neutrality influence U.S. participation in World War I? (Points: 5) The United States missed communications that helped provide effective defense strategies. The United States considered joining Germany in World War I. The United States entered the war much later than other nations. The United States entered the war much earlier than most other nations. 24. What was one effect of U.S. participation in World War I on civilians? (Points: 5) Jobs became available for women and minorities as men were drafted to serve in the military. Food shortages contributed to an increase in vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition. As the size of the military increased, civilians could not provide sufficient supplies. Children had to enter the workforce because there was a labor shortage. 25. What was the purpose of the Espionage and Sedition Acts that were passed during World War I? (Points: 5) to prevent spies from gaining information about U.S. submarines to eliminate communists from the United States to protect civil liberties to reduce debate and dissent over U.S. participation in the war 26. Which was not one of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points? (Points: 5) open diplomacy reparations for France and England freedom of the seas an end to economic barriers between countries 27. What was the major reason the U.S. Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles? (Points: 5) They believed that Germany was obligated to pay too much in reparations. They thought the League of Nations could supersede U.S. authority. They wanted the League of Nations to have more power than the treaty provided. They thought that the German government should be run by a coalition of other nations. 28. Which is an accurate description of the 1920s? (Points: 5) as an era of restraint as the "depression decade" as a period of chaos as an "age of prosperity" 29. Which grew significantly during the 1920s? (Points: 5) the influence of the automobile the impact of television the frequency of air travel the popularity of the telegraph 30. What 1920s movement renewed African American culture in art, music, literature, drama, and dance? (Points: 5) the Harlem Renaissance the Broadway Revival the Ellington Explosion the Armstrong Genesis k fine here are my answers: 16- B 17- A 18- B 19 - D 20- C 21- A 22- C 23- B 24- A 25- A 26- B 27- D 28- have no idea 29- C 30- C those are what i think they are but im really not sure please please help thanks

Someone said Hillary's plan wasn't laid out how much more laid out do you need? As president, Hillary will: Lower taxes for middle class families by: extending the middle class tax cuts including child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC and the child care tax credit. Harness the power of innovation to create high wage jobs of the 21st Century. Investments in alternative energy can create new jobs for the 21st century; expanded access to broadband will bring opportunities to underserved and disadvantaged communities; the manufacturing base can be re-energized through creative partnerships; and increased government support for research will stimulate the development of new technologies and life-saving medicines. Hillary will restore integrity to science policy, reversing Bush administration policies that are holding our nation back. Empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share. Hillary will ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong. She will also ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment. Restore the basic bargain. Hillary will restore the basic bargain that if Americans work hard and take responsibility, government will do its part to make sure they have the tools to get ahead. Return to fiscal responsibility. After six and a half year of President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses. Hillary believes that we should develop a set of budget rules similar to those we had in the 90s which required us to fund new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas. Keep the rhetoric going it is really making people think twice about Obama!

The European Union the superpower of the 21st century, the European Century? What do you think? An extract from an article by Mark Leonard, from the Irish Times Newspaper from 2005. For all the talk of the American Empire, the past two years have been more about the limits of American power. Its economic lead over Europe is disappearing (in 1950 its GDP per capita was twice that of Western Europe, while today it is almost the same size), while the political price for saying no to the superpower has never been lower (as Germany, France, Mexico, Turkey and Chile found over Iraq). In fact, the US leads the world in only two ways: it has the biggest army in the world, and the most popular "popular culture". But the combined might of the US military could do nothing to stop 9/11 or halt terrorism in Iraq, and the more America's presence around the world becomes militarised, the less attractive the American way of life becomes. Meanwhile, across the pond, Europeans - often by accident - have been developing a new kind of power that cannot be measured in terms of military budgets or smart-missile technology. It works in the long term, and is about reshaping the world rather than winning short-term tussles. And when we stop looking at the world through American eyes, we can see that each element of European "weakness" is in fact a facet of its extraordinary transformative power. In just 50 years, Europeans have made war between European powers unthinkable; European economies have closed the gap with the US; and Europe has brought successive waves of countries out of dictatorship and into democracy. If you look at a map of the world, you can see a zone of peace spreading like a blue oil slick - from the west coast of Ireland to the eastern Mediterranean; from the Arctic Circle to the Straits of Gibraltar - sucking in new members in its wake. Around the 450 million (as of 2009 it's 500 million) citizens of the EU, there are another 1.5 billion people who depend completely on an EU that is their biggest trade partner and their biggest source of credit, foreign investment, and aid. These two billion people (one-third of the world's population) live in the "Eurosphere": Europe's zone of influence, which is gradually being transformed by the European project and adopting European ways of doing things. Europe's power is easy to miss. Europe doesn't flaunt its strength or talk about a "single sustainable model of progress" as America does. Instead, like an "invisible hand", it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The Dail, Irish law courts, and Irish civil servants are still here, but they have all become agents of the European Union, implementing European law. This is no accident. By creating standards that are implemented through national institutions, Europe can take over the world without becoming a target for hostility. The same is true of European troops abroad who often serve under UN or NATO flags rather than the European one. While every US company, embassy and military base is a terrorist target, Europe's invisibility allows it to spread its influence without provocation. The fact that Europe does not have one leader, but rather a network of centres of power united by common policies and goals, means it can expand to accommodate ever-greater numbers of countries without compromising their independence, while continuing to provide its members with the benefits of being part of the largest market in the world. Europeans are not interested in classic geo-politics when they talk to other countries: instead, they use the law to change them from within. Instead of talking about the war on terror or the balance of power, they look at what kind of government they have. What values underpin the state? What are its constitutional and regulatory frameworks? Europe's obsession with legal frameworks means it can transform the countries it comes into contact with, instead of just skimming the surface. The US might have changed the regime in Afghanistan, but Europe is changing all of Polish society, from its economic policies and property laws to its treatment of minorities and what gets served on the nation's tables. The lonely superpower can bribe, bully, or impose its will almost anywhere in the world, but when its back is turned, its potency wanes. The strength of the EU, conversely, is broad and deep: once sucked into its sphere of influence, countries are changed forever.

My answers are D A C A C D A B B D. checking on a few history questions-? 1. In the late nineteenth century, many businessmen argued that the United States should be prepared to compete with nations throughout the world for natural resources. What policy would these businessmen support? (Points: 3) active environmental protection an end to American imperialism a movement toward American imperialism an end to environmental protection 2. Why did the United States traditionally oppose imperialism? (Points: 3) because the U.S. military lacked the power of other nations because the Monroe Doctrine was against imperialism because there were plenty of raw materials within U.S. borders, so there was no need to go outside because the United States had originally been a colony and was against imposing that status on others 3. Which did not contribute to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain? (Points: 3) the explosion on the battleship Maine the need to protect U.S. investments in Cuba yellow journalism promoting war the Spanish attack on Puerto Rico 4. Which place did not play a role in the Spanish-American War? (Points: 3) Manila Bay San Juan Hill Havana Mexico City 5. The treaty ending the Spanish-American War made the Philippines a U.S. territory. What was another provision of the treaty? (Points: 3) Panama agreed to allow the United States to build a canal there. Haiti and the Dominican Republic became U.S. territories. Spain would pay reparations to the United States. Cuban independence was assured. 6. What was the Philippines's response to becoming a U.S. territory following the Spanish-American War? (Points: 3) gratitude for the economic boost a declaration of war on the United States agreement that Filipinos should pay U.S. taxes violent resistance to American rule 7. Both Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. What else do they have in common? (Points: 3) Both were ruled by women until becoming U.S. territories. Both became U.S. territories during the late 1800s. Both were purchased by the United States for under $8 million. Both were annexed following U.S. invasions. 8. Which has never experienced U.S. occupation? (Points: 3) Jamaica Puerto Rico Haiti Dominican Republic 9. Which U.S. president made the following proposal: "A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike?" (Points: 3) William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt William Howard Taft Woodrow Wilson 10. Which U.S. president said in an annual message to Congress, "Today, more than ever before, American capital is seeking investment in foreign countries, and American products are more and more generally seeking foreign markets?" (Points: 3) William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt William Howard Taft Woodrow Wilson

What do corporate taxes cost the average american family? Ask a typical family about the taxes they pay, and they’ll likely focus on America’s biggest and most visible taxes: property taxes at home, sales taxes at the store, and income and payroll taxes deducted from their paychecks at work. One tax they’re likely to ignore is the corporate income tax. And the reason is simple: most who pay corporate income taxes aren’t even aware that they exist. But although corporate taxes are invisible to the average taxpayer, they quietly tap family pocketbooks for nearly $370 billion per year in the form of higher prices, lower wages and poorer returns on investments. “Most people think corporate income taxes are paid by wealthy, anonymous companies,” said Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation. “But as economists have been teaching for centuries, people bear the burden of corporate taxes, not companies.” Why do people not believe they pay these taxes indirectly? http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/corporate_income_taxes_cost_families-20080818.pdf American households pay $3,190 on average in corporate income taxes per year

Did you know what the "3 million$ overhead projector" is, do you think it is a worthwhile investment? "I am an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Chicago (the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain's statement during the today's debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?" The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment (overhead projector). The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of equipment. I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium's focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source of alarm a waste? "American's ability to compete in a 21st Century economy rests on our continued investments in math and science education," said Rep. Brian Baird, Chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in Congress, after the passage of The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. Considering such investments "wasteful earmarks" today, even in the face of the financial crisis, will severely cripple US economic competitiveness in the increasingly high-tech world down the road. " — Andrey Kravtsov, Chicago, IL

Please help me revise a speech for the election!? It's really bad! Be as critical as possible without being mean! Candidates’ Environmental Plans Polar bears are going extinct because of the melting ice burgs. The temperature is increasing 5°C every century. Global warming is causing the ozone layer, Earth’s protection against the sun’s harmful rays, to become weaker. These dilemmas are all part of one issue in our election: the environment . Both candidates devised plans to improve the environment in our country. Their plans will cover pollution, alternative energies and fuels, drilling for oil, cars, greenhouse gas emissions, green jobs, and much more. Both candidates acknowledge the fact that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming, but who has the best plan to help solve that and other problems? Barack Obama and John McCain have very different views on this subject. Senator Obama has a very strong environmental plan. He is very supportive in investments in alternative forms of energy. He plans to spend $150 billion in environmental- friendly energies and fuels in the next ten years. I’m pleased that he is putting so much devotion in alternative energy, but where does that “investment” come from? Inevitably , some of that mammoth amount will have to come from our taxes. This democrat will produce new businesses working on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, along with millions of new “green” jobs. That will help the economy immensely. Barack Obama says 1 million hybrid cars will be running by 2050 if he becomes president. They run on batteries, and don’t require gas. Also, by 2012, 10% of electricity will be renewable, and greenhouse gases will be lowered 80% by 2050. He will try to eliminate oil imports from the Middle East within ten years. This means less taxes on gas. He mostly opposes drilling for oil domestically, but might do it as a last resort. He is neutral on nuclear energy, since it would be very expensive. Also, Barack Obama will require all cars to meet fuel efficiency expectations, so it will take less fuel to fill up American’s tanks. He supports the protection of natural places from development, which I believe all Americans should do. Humans have already destroyed the homes of too many animals. However, the senator is neutral on schemes to help save endangered species from extinction. In my opinion, this is despicable. We should transfer the energy and effort we put into unimportant matters to helping our fellow animals live happy lives and flourish. Although Barack Obama’s plan is wonderful, do they measure up to John McCain’s? John McCain has a well- developed solution to the environmental issue. His energy plan is called the Lexington Project. This plan will help America break dependency with foreign oil, improve transportation, promote energy efficiency, and help global warming. McCain states, “In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.” McCain will reward people who buy clean cars. The “Clean Car Challenge” will provide a $5000 tax credit to any purchaser of a zero carbon emission car. Also, he will require automakers to switch to flex fuel, which lasts longer and is better for the environment than regular fuel. He will use and create new alternative energies and fuels, but won’t make investments as large as his opponent. He strongly supports nuclear energy, unlike Barack Obama. He says it is very safe; the military has been using it for years. John McCain also plans to drill for oil in Alaska. This will lower prices in ten years. The republican says it is a long process that will pay off in the end. Although it would be helpful, there is a chance it can result in a lot of pollution if the oil spills. To people concerned about that, Senator McCain says that the ships are very secure, so a spill would be unlikely. He plans to drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, but not in the Artic Wildlife Refuge. I believe that both of these places should be left untouched. They are protected for a reason; they’re pristine and beautiful in every way. John McCain will lower greenhouse gas emissions 50- 60% by 2050, 30- 20% less than Barack Obama plans to lower it. As you can see, McCain also has a well- thought out energy/ environment plan. Now that you know each candidate’s methods to improve the environment, it is time for you to make the decision: Barack Obama or John McCain? You are not only voting for president, you are voting for the course of action to put an end to global warming, prevent pollution, fuel our cars, saves the polar bears, and much more. It is a very critical time, and everybody needs to use their voice. Vote 2008! thank you! So, it would be "increasing 5 degrees C (41 degrees F)"? I know I kept on repeating words, so can you tell me what words I repeated the most, and good words to replace it?

When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the Left.? It is not just in Iraq that the political Left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the Left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise. The old advertising slogan, “Progress is our most important product,” has never applied to the Left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or third-world countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest. Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves “progressives.” What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrongdoing. One wonders what they would do in heaven. We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some third-world countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before. The August 18 issue of the distinguished British magazine The Economist reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens. Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in The Economist but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were. They have shown no such interest in how tens of millions of people in China and tens of millions of people in India have risen out of poverty within the past generation. Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the Left's denunciations of society. When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the Left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration. This is not a new development in our times. Back in the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented his vision of the impoverished working class rising to attack and destroy capitalism, he was disappointed when the workers grew less revolutionary over time, as their standards of living improved. At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: “The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.” Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society. If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were “nothing.” No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words. Blacks are to the Left today what the working class were to Marx in the 19th century — pawns in an ideological game. Blacks who rise out of poverty are of no great interest to the Left, unless the way they do so is by attacking society. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 but the Left has shown no more interest in why that is so than they have shown in why many millions of people have risen out of poverty in Latin America or in China and India. Where progress can be plausibly claimed to be a result of policies favored by the left, then such claims are made. A whole mythology has grown up that the advancement of minorities and women in America is a result of policies promoted by the Left in the 1960s. Such claims are often based on nothing more substantial than ignoring the history of the progress made prior to 1960. Retrogressions in the wake of the policies of the 1960s are studiously ignored — the runaway crime rates, the disintegration of black families, and the ghetto riots of the 1960s that have left many black communities still barren more than 40 years later. Whatever does not advance the Left agenda is “nothing.”

Does Obama support reparations? ? Sen. Barack Obama told a meeting in Chicago the U.S. should review how it can make amends for "offenses" committed during its history. And one author is speculating that might even include reparations for al-Qaida soldiers, since, after all, they've been held in violation of their "rights." Obama's comments came in a meeting with members of UNITY '08, an event for journalists who claim membership in various minorities. Obama, according to the report in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, stopped just short of endorsing an official U.S. apology to various groups. He said instead the nation should acknowledge treating certain groups poorly. "There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told the convention. He has told Hawaii reporters he supports a federal plan to recognize native Hawaiians. He was asked for his thoughts about a formal U.S. apology to American Indians "I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," he told conventioneers. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds," he said. The issue of reparations to African-Americans for the historic slave trade or Native Americans for the "invasion" by Europeans periodically has been raised. Several years ago a lawsuit was filed claiming damages for labor at a current value of $1.4 trillion. At Renew America, Michael Gaynor also publicly wondered about Obama's statements to a recent "Meet the Press." Obama said, "The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income. Our inner cities are a legacy of what happened in the past. And the question is less assigning blame or rooting out active racism, because that's not the reason that those inner cities are in such bad shape, but rather figuring out are we willing to make the investments to deal with that past history so we can move forward to a brighter future? And that involves investing in early childhood education, fixing the schools in those communities, being willing to work in terms of job retraining. And those are serious investments." Asked Gaynor, "Is 'serious investments' code for 'reparations'? And how expensive and devastating would Obama's income redistribution policy be?" The comments were being discussed just as the U.S. House of Representatives issued an apology to black Americans for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" segregation." The resolution sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., a white Jew who earlier this year tried unsuccessfully to join the Congressional Black Caucus, was passed on a voice vote. In February, the Senate apologized to Native Americans, and in 2005 it apologized for standing by during the lynching of blacks last century. But at the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord, CEO of QubeTV and former Reagan White House political director, said the logical extension of such thought obviously could include reparations for al-Qaida. "Does Barack Obama believe it's time for America to apologize to al-Qaida?" he asked. "You think I'm joking, right? Wrong." "The push has begun among Obama's fellow-liberals for reparations to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida warriors. Look no further than the Los Angeles Times review of the new book by liberal journalist Jane Mayer, 'The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals.' Mayer's indictment of the Bush administration's fight against terrorism has predictably received glowing reviews from the gatekeepers of liberalism, including a July 15th review from Times staff writer Tim Rutten. "In wonderfully liberal style that is beyond parody, Rutten uses a book review to endorse the idea of paying money to Osama's fighters who, in the eyes of liberals, have been denied their 'right' of habeas corpus at Guantanamo. The denial of habeas to non-Americans captured on foreign battlefields is, of course, also a major campaign point for Senator Obama. Obama, restating his long-held position about captured al-Qaida fighters having the right of habeas corpus, was prompted by the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush. "The liberals on the Court, with the mind-boggling addition of Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy, held that contrary to Bush administration and congressional policy, not to mention all of American history, the prisoners of war or 'detainees' picked up off the battlefields (in this case Afghanistan and Iraq) are in fact entitled to the same constitutional r

Why my question/opinion about the Myth of political leadership was remove? only from this cateory ¡¡? In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect. Deleted Answer: In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect.

ap euro industrialization,urbanization,and upheavals in europe question 2? in the mid-nineteenth century, industrial growth in western europe was significantly stimulated by the a. abolition of national customs barriers b. introduction of assembly-line production c. investment of american capital d. expansion of transportation systems e. expansion of labor unions

ap euro question 6? In the mid-nineteenth century, industrial growth in Western Europe was significantly stimulated by the a. abolition of national customs barriers b. introduction of assembly-line production c. investment of American capital d. expansion of transportation systems e. expansion of labor unions

ap euro question helppp? industrialization,urbanization,and upheavals in europe In the mid-nineteenth century, industrial growth in Western Europe was significantly stimulated by the a. abolition of national customs barriers b. introduction of assembly-line production c. investment of American capital d. expansion of transportation systems e. expansion of labor unions

can someone summarize this article for me like now? NEW YORK – TO BE RELEVANT, ART must respond to the choices, changes and challenges of these fluid, turbulent times and help create the conditions necessary to transform society and deal with consequences, where the burning issues of the day become the overriding factor in the pursuit of a meaningful popular culture. All artists are active participants in these current cross cultural dynamics and cannot afford to be left out in the cold or live the solitary, isolated existence under the pretentious mask of artistic indifference. To be catalysts for change, artists need to constantly question their own motives, unfair policies affecting creative freedom and one's role in a society; to continuously evolve and not waste valuable time worrying about their reputation after they’re dead. Much as we respect the choices most artists make for themselves, there’s an underlying need for them to document their own times - the sweeping political changes happening around us; to grapple with the issues as they come and try to create art that amplify and project opportunities for change to a larger audience. The enormous impact of Western popular culture on diverse communities worldwide has reached a point where we cannot afford to allow a handful of privileged few to define its form and content without the active participation of socially committed members of the international Arts community. It’s sad to note that the onslaught of American popular culture has marginalized, if not totally wiped out, indigenous cultures in many parts of the world. Poor, underdeveloped countries with rich cultural heritage have been 'touched' by the magic wand of Hollywood and are fighting back its negative impact on their traditional way of life. Cultural amnesia- the loss of traditional values, oral history and indigenous art forms, have now become more prevalent than in the past as more and more ethnic communities are quick to adapt what they see on the screen as 'progress' and accept it to be far better than what they have had for centuries. I hope the scheduled conference on social theory, on politics and the arts would address these concerns to be able to institute necessary changes to safeguard the integrity of indigenous communities. The upcoming 33rd Conference on Social Theory, Politics and the Arts is a continuing dialogue by participants drawn not only from artists in the visual, performing, written and multi media arts but also from a broad range of disciplines that include sociology, political science, management, economics, law, urban planning and policy studies. Hosted by The New York foundation for the Arts, The Arts Council of Manhattan, the NYU Roberts Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and the Research Center for Leadership in Action, this year's conference aims "to explore new trends, practices and public policy issues affecting and shaping the arts around the world." Last March, I had the privilege of taking part in an art exhibition at a Chelsea gallery in NYC and was glad to see quite a number of artworks that explored the political realities of American life, skillfully calculated to question and disturb viewers from their private complacency. There is no question that the New York art scene has been regarded as the crystal ball of new things to come; unfortunately, the current crop of art pieces had nothing much to say and even failed miserably to amuse. Despite living in the shadows of 9/11, political art in NYC is still groping in the dark ages, seemingly destined to be graffiti outside gallery walls. Quite a number of NY-based artists I’ve met, whose works revolve around the current political debates, lament that most art galleries won't dare touch 'political art' with the proverbial ten feet pole. Art galleries are primarily business driven and understandably more concerned with their return of investments. Unfortunately some even expound that myth that artists should stay away and be apolitical, to paint only decorative, 'saleable' pieces that would go well in upscale condo units. What gets hanged or not hanged in galleries have a great impact on popular culture and most galleries would cringe at anything resembling 'breaking news' from war zones. But for most artists to continue doing what they’re good at, they have to live on their art. But since the market for political art, if one has to survive on it, is not much, this could initially discourage some artists from investing much of their creative time on it. Hopefully gallery owners would realize that political art has its niche in our lives. In contrast is the swelling tide of books on current political debates. I can't help but envy those writers and publishing houses that dare focus their efforts and resources to bring about the truth regardless of consequences. Whistleblowers, anti-war groups, civil disobedience advocates and environmental activist are all having a field day. These writers have successfully rammed their political views

APUSH Question! I need the answer ASAP!!!? 1. When extended, the Open Door policy called on all big powers, including the United States, to a.recognize Philippine independence at an early date. b.guarantee the independence of Cuba. c.build a Panamanian canal. d.observe the territorial integrity of China. e.pursue further investment in China. 2. American involvement in the affairs of Latin American nations at the turn of the century usually stemmed from a.the need to defend these nations against a reassertion of Spanish power. b.the hope that involvement would lead to their outright acquisition by the United States. c.the fact that they were chronically in debt. d.the desire to control the flow of Latin American immigrants into the United States. e.a desire to strengthen Latin American democracy. First right answers gets best answer. Please provide a link.

Grammar help, please!!~~~? The global world made American to realize how the other countries prepare an education for math and science. Jobs are requiring science or engineering training will rise. In the other countries, China graduated 500,000 engineers in 2004, and India, 200,000. The USA graduated 70,000. For an instance of China, they have a strong school curriculum and try to make math and science as standards. That’s why Chinese students are one of the top students in math and science.,On April 25, 2007, US senators passed the bill called as S. 761, the America Competes Act. This was an important bill for the education because in included important issue about education related to math and science. The legislation focuses on three primary areas to improve American competitiveness in the 21st Century. It highlights this; first, increasing research investment, strengthening educational opportunities in science, technology, second, the engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school, and the last thing is developing an infrastructure that will enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States. This bill shows that math and science, and efforts to support them, are vital in keeping Americans educationally competitive. As I see this, government put a lot of efforts to develop the educational program of math and science. Through this bill, American government hopes that this will be impacted on education to lead a foundation of math and science.

Vulnerable in the nation: Poor Children? Protect the most vulnerable in the nation: Poor children During this season when people are most apt to consider the welfare of others, they shouldn't forget that the hard times many families are going through fall hardest on the least among them. A new edition of "Homeland Insecurity" provides a grim reminder that poor children remain the most vulnerable segment of the American population. The report should become a call to action for Congress and President-elect Barack Obama as they consider programs to expand health and child care, preschool and after-school education, and efforts to assist children whose parents are in prison. A horrible economy is moving millions of children into crisis, said Michael Petit, author of "Homeland Insecurity" and president of the Every Child Matters Education Foundation. The sobering statistics he cites include 2 million children with parents in prison, 8 million without health insurance, 13 million in poverty, and millions of children reported in abuse and neglect. "Homeland Insecurity" notes that the successful Head Start program serves only half of the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds. Fully funding Head Start should anchor a new set of national investments in children by providing more equal educational opportunities. Up to 90% of a child's brain development occurs by age 5. To be sure, more government money isn't the whole answer. To the extent they are able, parents must measure up to their responsibilities as protectors and providers. But an economy that throws millions out of work has made that increasingly difficult while creating the worst child poverty rate among developed countries. Last year, federal spending -- per person -- was nearly seven times greater for those 65 or older than for those under 18. While no one disputes the priority of care for the elderly, investments in children programs have to be a higher priority, especially since there's such a payoff. High-quality preschool programs aimed at disadvantaged children, for example, return to society, over 20 years, an estimated $8-$17 for every $1 invested. That return comes in wages earned and taxes paid, as well as lower social service and criminal justice costs. The federal government spends billions of dollars a month to meet its obligations in Iraq, and billions more to help major corporations. It also has a responsibility, as well as a compelling national interest, to assist those who ultimately will determine how the nation fares in this 21st Century. PS. Can anyone help me. If you could that would means lot. thank you.

Have you read this? ? I want to know what everybody thinks about this article below: What the Wrong Change could Do to Our Jobs and Economy. Improving the economy is a main issue for millions of Americans. History proves that a key driver of economic growth and prosperity is lower tax rates, which allow businesses to hire, buy goods and services, and make major investments in things like new equipment, automobiles and facilities. Senator Obama believes that increasing taxes on American businesses at this point and time is the way to return America to prosperity. It’s true that we need a change, but where our economy is concerned, is Senator Obama’s plan the Right Change? Here’s what the experts say: Stanford University Economist, Michael Boskin: “History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.” (“Obamanomics is a Recipe for Recession” The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2008) CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: "First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer." (Larry Kudlow, Op-Ed, "Why Not Blame Obama?" National Review, 4/18/08) James Pethokoukis, U.S. News & World Report: If Obama is correct and the economy ... is 'in a shambles' and 'teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse,' why would he want to nearly double the capital-gains-tax rate, which is a tax on savings, investment, and, yes, housing? ... [W]hy would he want raise payroll taxes by 6 to 12 percentage points on people making $100,000 or more? And again, Obama said this right after pledging not to raise taxes on people making under $200,000 to $250,000." (James Pethokoukis, "Obama-Clinton Debate In Philadelphia Spawns Weird Economics," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 4/17/08) Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform: “Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century… Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.” Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report: “Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy.” (Michael Barone, Op-Ed, “Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever,” U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08) Amity Schlaes, Bloomberg News: "When the capital-gains rate is low, America feels like doing business. When the rate is high, the country turns its attention elsewhere. ... If a capital-gains rate increase alone, however, makes it into 2008 law, the U.S. economy will become less competitive compared with other economies at a crucial time. And if you don't mind me saying, that's a spread that can affect a lot of relationships." (Amity Shlaes, Op-Ed, "Wife-Swapping, Taxes And Spreads Are All Related," Bloomberg.com, 8/1/07) The Tax Foundation: “Among 30 industrialized nations, the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate (39.3%) in the world. As other nations gain on the US in the basic ingredients of economic competitiveness, the imbalance in tax rates is becoming a bigger drag on the US economy. (Tax Foundation) source: http://rightchange.com/issue_tax4.php

What fallacies are used in this NY times Article on Global Warming? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/22/opinion/in-america-rising-tides.html RISING TIDES The easiest approach for the time being is to pretend it's not happening. It's better for the nerves in the short run to remain riveted by the Clinton follies or the latest shenanigans on ''Temptation Island'' than to acknowledge that the majestic ice cap atop Mount Kilimanjaro, which seemed for so long to be an almost permanent feature of the planet, will vanish in less than 15 years. It's February and it's cold in New York, which can help us maintain the fiction that the planet is not warming at a scary rate. But the snows are disappearing from Kilimanjaro, and a few years ago scientists were astonished when a mammoth fragment of the Larsen Ice Shelf at the edge of the Antarctic Peninsula collapsed like a window shattered by a rock. The fragment had measured 48 miles by 22 miles and was hundreds of feet thick. It eventually disappeared. Many strange things are happening. The seasons are changing, rainstorms are becoming more intense, sea levels are rising, mighty glaciers are receding, the permafrost (by definition, the permanently frozen subsoil in the polar regions) is thawing, trees are flowering earlier, insects are emerging sooner, and so on. Global warming is not coming, it's here. There are likely to be some beneficial results in some areas from the warming, such as longer growing seasons and increased crop yields in certain mid-latitude regions, and a decline in deaths related to extreme cold. But over all, the effects of this sharp and accelerating and largely artificial warming of the planet -- including the consequences of such extreme events as droughts, floods, heat waves, avalanches and tropical storms -- are potentially catastrophic. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report released Tuesday in Geneva, said, ''More people are projected to be harmed than benefited by climate change, even for global mean temperature increases of less than a few degrees centigrade.'' The report also discussed an issue that has profound policy and ethical implications. The worst effects of global warming will probably not be felt by those most responsible for the pollution of the atmosphere by heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The great industrial societies, which have benefited so long from the rapacious devouring of resources and the indiscriminate release of pollutants, are also the societies best positioned to cope with the treacherous forces of global warming. As the panel noted in its report, ''The ability of human systems to adapt to and cope with climate change depends on such factors as wealth, technology, education, information, skills, infrastructure, access to resources, and management capabilities.'' Developing countries, deficient in those areas, are doomed to suffer disproportionately from the warming of the planet. ''The effects of climate change,'' the panel said, ''are expected to be greatest in developing countries in terms of loss of life and relative effects on investment and the economy.'' Despite the powerful and increasing evidence of the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the warming of the earth, the concentrations of those gases in the atmosphere are expected to increase, not decrease, over the next several decades. Government leaders are not responding to the problem with the sense of urgency that is called for. Carbon dioxide doesn't just float away in a day or two. It remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years. The consequences of our failure to act will last for centuries. Americans have a special responsibility here. The United States is the mightiest nation on the planet and the greatest contributor to the industrial component of global warming. The nation is wealthy and at peace. A mature approach would require certain sacrifices designed to provide a better environment for future generations of Americans and a more equitable relationship with neighbors around the world. But that's only one approach. Another is to just ignore the problem and continue to feast like gluttons at the table of the world's resources. That will work for awhile. Why not? All you have to do is convince yourself that damaging the planet is somebody else's problem. by Bob Herbert

history study review help!!? 1.In the late nineteenth century, U.S. businessmen wanted to compete with other nations for natural resources. What policy did they support? environmental protection American imperialism foreign imperialism isolationism 2. Why did the United States traditionally oppose imperialism? because the U.S. military lacked the power of other nations because the Monroe Doctrine was against it because there were plenty of raw materials within U.S. borders, so there was no need to go outside because the United States had originally been a colony and was against colonizing others 3. Both yellow journalism and the explosion on the battleship Maine contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. What was another reason for going to war? to prevent Spain from attacking Florida to protect U.S. investments in Cuba to stop Cuban nationalization of U.S. businesses to keep Spain from attacking Venezuela 5. The treaty ending the Spanish-American War made the Philippines a U.S. territory. What was another provision of the treaty? Cuban independence was assured. Panama agreed to allow the United States to build a canal there. Haiti and the Dominican Republic became U.S. territories. Spain would pay reparations to the United States. 6. The United States acquired several territories as a result of the Spanish-American War. Which one resisted American rule? Puerto Rico the Philippines Cuba Panama 7. The United States acquired several new territories during the late 1800s. Which two eventually became states? California and Oregon Alaska and Hawaii Alaska and Oregon Hawaii and California 8. Which U.S. president proposed forming an association of nations to maintain peace? William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt William Howard Taft Woodrow Wilson 9. What was the major focus of William Howard Taft's foreign policy? Imperialism Dollar Diplomacy Isolationism foreign outreach 10. Negotiations with Colombia led to the purchase of a 10-mile-wide strip of land used to become President Theodore Roosevelt's greatest achievement. What was it? ownership of the richest soil in Central America a peace treaty that has lasted since his first term permanent oil drilling rights the Panama Canal 11. Which U.S. president took the most idealistic approach to foreign policy? William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt William Howard Taft Woodrow Wilson Which policies kept the United States from entering World War I in its first three years? isolationism and neutrality imperialism and democracy imperialism and neutrality the Monroe Doctrine and anti-imperialism 14. What was the chief result of U.S. participation in World War I? The French were inspired by U.S. entry to defeat Germany. The Germans launched a major attack on Britain. U.S. forces ended the stalemate and led to an Allied victory. Italy switched sides and joined the Allies. 15. What impact did U.S. entry into World War I have on labor and production? There was a serious labor shortage that was difficult to fill. The civilian population was unable to keep up with the supply needs of the military. With men drafted to serve in the military, jobs opened for women and minorities. Farming and agriculture fell short of meeting the food requirements of the military. 16. What was the purpose of the Committee on Public Information? to invite various groups to meet to share reports of civilian and military activities in World War I to be certain that Congress was accurately informed about the progress of the war to create propaganda to justify America's participation in World War I and encourage support to check rumors and reports of war activity to ensure accuracy for the American people 17. What was one way that the government reduced dissent over U.S. participation in World War I? passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts promoted the Red Scare prevented the post office from censorship formed the National Civil Liberties Bureau 18. Which of the following violated the Fourteen Points, Woodrow Wilson's goals for peace? economic penalties for Germany an association of nations open diplomacy freedom of the seas 19. Key points of the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of its overseas and colonies required Germany to pay for the war. What else did the treaty

Political leadership or hard worker honest people taking care of family?? In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect

help with us history test. PLEASE.? In the late nineteenth century, U.S. businessmen wanted to compete with other nations for natural resources. What policy did they support? (Points: 3) isolationism environmental protection American imperialism foreign imperialism 2. Why did the United States traditionally oppose imperialism? (Points: 3) because the U.S. military lacked the power of other nations because the Monroe Doctrine was against it because there were plenty of raw materials within U.S. borders, so there was no need to go outside because the United States had originally been a colony and was against colonizing others 3. Both yellow journalism and the explosion on the battleship Maine contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. What was another reason for going to war? (Points: 3) to prevent Spain from attacking Florida to protect U.S. investments in Cuba to stop Cuban nationalization of U.S. businesses to keep Spain from attacking Venezuela 4. Which place did not play a role in the Spanish-American War? (Points: 3) Manila Bay San Juan Hill Havana Mexico City 5. The treaty ending the Spanish-American War made the Philippines a U.S. territory. What was another provision of the treaty? (Points: 3) Haiti and the Dominican Republic became U.S. territories. Spain would pay reparations to the United States. Cuban independence was assured. Panama agreed to allow the United States to build a canal there.

What are your thoughts (part 2)? Invest in the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs * Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators: Obama will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state. * Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth. This highly-successful program has engaged in more than 350,000 projects across the country and in 2006 alone, helped create and protect over 50,000 jobs. But despite this success, funding for MEP has been slashed by the Bush administration. Barack Obama will double funding for the MEP so its training centers can continue to bolster the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. * Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. * Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth. * Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs: The Obama plan will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs. Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own. Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit, a credit used successfully by American farmers and investors to increase renewable energy production and create new local jobs. New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment Barack Obama believes that it is critically important for the United States to rebuild its national transportation infrastructure – its highways, bridges, roads, ports, air, and train systems – to strengthen user safety, bolster our long-term competitiveness and ensure our economy continues to grow. * Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank: Barack Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity. Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs Barack Obama will increase federal support for research, technology and innovation for companies and universities so that American families can lead the world in creating new advanced jobs and products. * Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama supports doubling federal funding for basic research and changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America. * Make the Research and Development Tax Credit Permanent: Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce and technology infrastructure to be supported here in America so that American workers and communities will benefit. Obama wants to make the Research and Development tax credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when maki

Why is there not a media frenzy over the obvious fraud that Al Gore has created with his Global Warming scam? [H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management: Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe... Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks. Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself. Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science. http://newsbusters.org/node/11149 The former US vice president is in line to make a large profit from a firm producing smart meters which monitor household electricity use. http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html Main Entry: fraud Pronunciation: \ˈfrȯd\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus Date: 14th century 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting Al Gores "intentional perversion of truth" in his Global Warming for his own profit most definitely is fraud, as well as his use of known deceit and trickery by the use of false numbers to show global warming while 'conveniently" leaving out the global numbers. How do those "flat earthers" that following Gores scam feel now that the truth has been exposed, still feeling "highly intellectual"?

What do you think of this bailout plan?? No bailout unless its a total approach? not one penny of bailout money to be doled out unless the following are done first. 1) Regulations for financial sector, mortgages, and wall street to prevent such a mess from happening again. 2) Resolve the illegal immigration crisis with legislation to seal borders and crack down heavily on employers who hire illegals and a system of verify who is paying into social security and paying taxes to find out who is an illegal or not. 3) Raise taxes for individuals making over $250,000 a year, and cut taxes for those making less 4) Eliminate tax loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their taxes and pay what the tax tables say they should pay. 5)Tax breaks for corportations based on how many american workers here at home they hire. The more american citizens they hire here at home the greater the breaks 6) Impose a tax on any goods made in china that effectively raises the prices by 20%. 7) Pass laws that would help reduce the high cost of health care for citizens, encourage students to go into medical field, encourage more clinics and hospitals, etc.. Grants for people who go to med school or nursing school etc.. We also need to do things to increase competition in the pharmaceutical industry and reduce prices. 8) An 21 st century energy policy that plans to make it so that in 15 years or less all cars on american roads will run fossil fuel free. 9) Yes, a bit more drilling for oil in short term in lands already appropriated for that. 10) Make it so that everyone pays into social security no matter what their income is ...but max out the benefits so that anyone making over $75,000 year will not get any more in benefits than that. 11) Start addressing our infrastructure including an electrical grid for the 21st century. 12) We need a firm plan to be out of Iraq and stop spending all that money over there. Its ridiculous to think that we can keep printing money to solve all these problems while ignoring that we are blowing 10 billion a month in Iraq alone. We need a major piece of legislation that forces our law makers to address all these major issues instead of simply a bailout that bails out firms that made bad investments. Then the last piece to be added should be a bailout as long as the regulations are there, reduced pay for executives from now on......no reason for any executive to be paid 100 million dollars in salary while their firms go bankrupt....thats crazy. there should be a law that ties part of the compensation on the firms profits. If the company is doing badly they should not be making all that money. There needs to be an independent agency like the RTC did for the Savings and loan debacle and there must be oversight by congress only. My point here folks is that part of the reason we in a mess economically is because our law makers and presidents have put on on many bad paths...its not just one bad path. The subprime crisis is just one of many things that are ailing our economy and harming ordinary americans. So this is an opportunity to really deal with all or most it...and really put us back on the right track. 13) Pass a mandatory balanced budget law...that allows only deficits where the govt sells bonds to the american people or american owned corporations. NO more of putting ourselves in debt to communist China.

Conservatives -- Can you read this summary of the Cap and Trade bill without foaming at the mouth? Summary Of The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: American Clean Energy and Security Act. June 27th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under Some of the key points of the American Clean Energy & Security Act from Grist, since they know better than I do. You can head to their site to read the nitty gritty, but here is a general summary: Renewable electricity standard The bill creates a renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require large utilities in each state to produce an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Qualifying renewable sources are wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, marine and hydrokinetic energy, biogas and biofuels derived exclusively from eligible biomass, landfill gas, wastewater-treatment gas, coal-mine methane, hydropower projects built after 1992, and some waste-to-energy projects. Emission cuts The bill would put a cap on emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and would require high-emitting industries to reduce their output to specific targets between now and the middle of the century. (This is the “cap” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) The bill covers 85 percent of the overall economy, including electricity producers, oil refineries, natural gas suppliers, and energy-intensive industries like iron, steel, cement, and paper manufacturers. Emission permits Regulated industries would need to acquire permits for their emissions. (Emission permits are also referred to as “carbon credits,” “pollution allowances,” and various combinations of these words.) If a company cuts its emissions so much that it has more permits than it needs, it can sell excess permits to other companies or bank them for future use. If a company doesn’t have enough permits, it can buy more or borrow its future credits and pay interest on them. Non-regulated entities (banks, nonprofits, people like you) can also buy and sell permits. (This is the “trade” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) If a company’s emissions exceed its permits, it would be fined two times the fair market value of the permits it should have purchased. How permit auction revenue would be spent About 15 percent of the pollution permits would be sold by the federal government in the initial years of the program. Here’s how the revenue would be spent (shown as a percentage of the value of all permits): * 15 percent would be used to offset increased energy costs for low- and moderate-income households * 5 percent would be used to prevent international deforestation, scaling back to 3 percent from 2026 to 2030 and 2 percent from 2031 to 2050 * 2 percent would be used to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change from 2012 through 2021, scaling up to 4 percent from 2022 through 2026 and 8 percent thereafter; half would be spent on wildlife and natural resources and the other half on other adaptation concerns, like public health Investments in energy technology By 2025, the bill would direct an estimated total of $190 billion to energy technologies and efficiency measures: * $90 billion to energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies * $60 billion to carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology * $20 billion to electric vehicles and other advanced automotive technologies * $20 billion for basic scientific research and development Offsets Regulated companies would be allowed to purchase carbon offsets to meet a portion of their required emission reductions—meaning they could fund clean-energy projects elsewhere instead of cutting their own emissions. This could lower the cost of complying with the new law. Coal-fired power plants * New coal plants could be built between 2009 and 2020, though they would be expected to adopt carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies when they become commercially available * By 2025, all coal plants built after 2009 would have to capture 50 percent of their CO2 emissions Worker transition * Workers displaced due to new emission regulations would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement (70 percent of their average weekly wages), 80 percent of their monthly health-care premium, up to $1,500 for job-search assistance, and up to $1,500 for moving assistance Smarter cars and smarter grids * The bill includes a “cash-for-clunkers” program that would provide roughly 1 million vouchers, ranging from $3,500 to $4,500 in value, to consumers who trade in older, less-fuel efficient vehicles for new vehicles that get better gas mileage http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/06/27/summary-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill-american-clean-energy-and-security-act/ Apparently they can't...

Exactly when did the right's supposed laissez-faire utopia exist in America? Conservatives often bemoan government intervention in the economy, as if such intervention never occurred in the past. Much like their misremembering of the 1950's as some golden age of morality and righteousness, their idea that the US practiced laissez-faire until the 20th century has zero basis in reality. In truth, the paradigm followed by the US throughout most of its history - and especially during the post-Civil War period of rapid industrialization - was the Hamiltonian (after the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton) American School of Economics, which consisted of several key policies by which the government promoted development and economic growth: - Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70). - Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation). - A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) It seems to me that the notion of some bygone laissez-faire utopian era is a falsity. Perhaps conservatives could tell me when such a period occurred? Or, failing that, why they insist on re-writing history? "Never a source." Ah, trying to poison the well, are we? "A compedium of opinions openly edited by the ill informed." And then re-edited over and over, such that disputes over sources and such are worked out in short order. Wikipedia is about as accurate as any other encyclopedia, and if you're so worried about it, THE ORIGINAL SOURCES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. Snerdly, To your first point, we need to define what is meant by "supply side" economics. Obviously, an increase in aggregate supply is necessary for growth. The question is though, what is the best way to shift the AS curve toward the left? The evidence is that the best way to do this is by the aforementioned infrastructure investments. The most rapid periods of growth - always and everywhere - have been those in which the investment in physical infrastructure have been greatest. In the US, these are the post-Civil War period, and the period from 1933 - 1968. This is to be expected, as it's materially impossible to have substantial private-sector growth without the physical and financial infrastructure to support it. "Supply-side economics" as it's popularly known does not do this. It isn't actually about increasing supply at all, but encouraging investment and consumption demand whilst neglecting the real, physical supply side. The AS curve should be shifted towards the right, actually - my bad. Navymom, Methamphetamine use also reached its all-time peak in the 1950's. For a time, it was the most widely-prescribed drug in the country.

Question for White supremacists? What makes Whites superior to other groups? If we go by the qualities that matter most Intelligence: East Asians have the highest average IQ's. Japan has the highest average IQ in the world for a country. A Korean , Kim Ung Yong, has the highest IQ in the world (210). Athleticism: Blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population, but dominate almost all of it's mainsteam sports. A jamaican, Usain Bolt, is the fastest human in the world. The greatest dancers are also considered Black. Blacks have also demonstrated they have the same intellectual capabilities as Whites & Asians when given the same opportunities. African immigrants are the highest educated group in the U.S., an African-American (Ben Carson) is the most successful brain surgeon in the world, the presiident of the U.S. is Black, and almost all genres of American music from Rock & Roll to Jazz have their origins in the Black community Wealth: China is quickly mobilizing as the world's next super-power, and by the year 2050 it would have replaced the U.S. Other countries like S. Korea, Japan, India, Brazil, etc are also gearing up for economic powerdom. In Africa, increased investments from countries like India & China, are placing African countries like Ghana, Gabon, & S. Africa in a position to industrialize by the end of the 21st century All of which meaning Asians, Latino's & Blacks are getting richer Beauty: Is subjective

history help! please thank you!? 11. Which invention and inventor are credited with changing the nature of commerce and news in the first half of the nineteenth century? (Points: 3) printing press and Benjamin Franklin telephone and Alexander Graham Bell telegraph and Samuel F.B. Morse electric battery and Alessandro Volta 12. What was the impact of Morse's telegraph on communication? (Points: 3) It sped up the delivery of news and information, promoting the development of a market economy. It brought a means of rapid communication into the homes of ordinary citizens. It allowed politicians within a state to prepare more efficiently for their congressional sessions. It created international avenues for bringing European investment dollars into the American market. 13. Which was not true of the American electorate in the 1820s? (Points: 3) Landholding requirements for voting had been eliminated. Most white men were able to vote. Women had taken great strides in achieving the right to vote. Most members of the Electoral College were popularly elected. 14. Who won the popular vote in the election of 1824? (Points: 3) John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson Henry Clay William Crawford thank you so much

Is thye political leadership a Myth ?? more cost than benefit ?? Elections? In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect.

Is political Leadership a Myth ? In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect. _______________________________ Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr Sorry, Some Ideas need this long........

Can you please help me with my US History Homework? Thanks!? This is what the paper looks like: US History The Emergence od Industrial America Listed below are a series of factors responsible for American industrialism in the late nineteenth century. Explain the significance of each term to the emergence of industry in America Factors Supporting Industrialism a. Western mining b. Immigration c. Government subsidies and tax concessions to railroads d. Advances in communication e. Corporation charters f. Laissez faire attitude of government g. Bessemer process h. New sources of power i. High tariffs j. Yankee ingenuity k. Entrepreneurs l. Vertical and horizontal integration m. National markets n. Civil War profits and foreign investment That's what the paper says Thanks! xD (Any help is appreciated) no i don't understand the instructions and im shy and dont liek asking teacher for help! The instructions aren't detailed and are confusing. I don't know how much to write for each one?

If we compare Tibet with Mexican land annexed and occupied by the US, or if we compare China's investment in in Sudan today with US and Western investment there while genocide was going on in Southern Sudan, then who would look better, China or the US? Tibet had been part of China since the beginning of the 18th Century, though independent from 1910 to 1959, when China was exausted of revolutions and wars. The PRC's invaded Tibet in 1959 in order to liberate slaves and serfs. In Mexico-on the other hand-slavery was ablished in 1829, and after the US annexed Texas and conquered California and other Mexican land, some American setlers there demanded that slavery would be reintroduced. Texas even joined the South in the US Civil War. China, which sels small arms to Sudan today, claims that only dialogue will resolve the conflict in Sudan. And indeed dialogue takes place. The obsticle to peace there, however, is outrageous demands set by some Darfurian rebell groups which could, God forbid, endanger peace in Southern Sudan. An attempt on Mubarak's life-not genocie-led to sanctions against Sudan

For the Majority, those not enjoying Investment Tax Cuts, Is the U.S. Becoming a Third World Country? Nonfarm payroll jobs data show that the US economy in the 21st century no longer creates net new jobs in tradable goods and services. In the 21st century, job growth in "the world's only superpower" has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services. These are not jobs that comprise ladders of upward mobility. Income inequality is worsening, and education is no longer the answer. The problem is that middle class jobs, both in manufacturing and in professional occupations such as engineering, are being offshored as corporations replace their American workforces with foreigners. The latest bombshell is that even those professional jobs that remain located in America are not safe. There is a vast industry of immigration law firms that enable American corporations to replace their American workers with foreigners brought in on Work Visas. Except for Lou Dobbs on CNN, the US TV and print media have so far ignored the astounding story. Where are the headlines: "US Jobs: No American Need Apply"? For Millions of Americans in Service Jobs they have seen their Wages stagnate and Inflation soar. In the last 5 years, since 2002: Food has gone up 12.2% Milk has gone up 41% Diapers up 27% The Cost of Living is up 12% Cost of Gas is up 48% http://supermarketswindle.com/ Phil- Lawyers

Do you think these actions would be effective in helping the economy? 1.Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what they earn. 2.Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers. 3.Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland's rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America. 4.Homeowner's Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes. 5.Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget. This begins with eliminating Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending. 6.No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money. 7.More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels. 8.Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More investment in America means more jobs in America. 9.Protect the Rights of American Workers. We must protect a worker's right to decide by secret ballot whether to join a union, and the worker's right to freely negotiate. Forced unionism will kill jobs in America at a time when we can't afford to lose them. 10.Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them. 11.Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington. 12.Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure. This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.

CRASH? Do you agree with Forbes? That the United States facing perhaps the worst financial crisis since 1933? Forbes magazine said the United States is now facing perhaps the worst financial crisis since the banking panic that former President Franklin Roosevelt faced in 1933. To help grease the financial plumbing Monday, the Federal Reserve pumped a total of $70 billion ($50 billion and then another regularly scheduled $20 billion were injected in temporary reserves) into the nation's financial system through open market operations to help ease credit stresses. Lehman Brothers, the country's fourth-largest investment bank, filed for bankruptcy protection. A weakened Merrill Lynch, deciding it couldn't go it alone anymore, found help in the arms of Bank of America. Now, the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is dangerously wobbling. Against this backdrop, Wall Street on Monday plunged 500 points, the most since the September 2001 terror attacks. "Fed pumps $70B into nation's financial system" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_credit_crisis "Wall Street is now at the mercy of Washington." "Facing reporters at the White House on Monday, Wall-Street-titan-turned-Treasury-Secretary Henry Paulson deflected questions about whom to finger for the meltdown, saying simply: “I’m playing the hand that was dealt to me.” So is Wall Street, and it’s folding." "No matter who’s elected, the next administration might have a much easier job of watching over the investment banking industry simply because it will be so tiny." http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080916/pl_politico/13486;_ylt=AkuWHsbzw.Qro8y4ZaffrHms0NUE On the trail... latest from our future leadership... McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Remain Strong On the campaign trail, Senator John McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy remain strong. Sen. John McCain: “You know that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is—people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult time. And I promise you we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall street. We will reform government. And this is a failure.” Senator Barack Obama accused McCain of subscribing to the same economic philosophy as President Bush. Sen. Barack Obama: “For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, that have loosened oversight and regulation and encouraged out-sized bonuses to CEO’s while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And I certainly don’t fault Senator John McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to, because it’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years.” All this has been happening since yesterday when the stock market dropped over 500 points and the ripple effect being felt around the world. Economists are all warning us this is a huge problem, it may be hard to get loans for cars, houses, etc. The state of the economy could get exponentially worse. People are being encouraged to withdraw from the banks and sell their stocks, etc. I wrote about this last night (per FDIC not being able to deal with the trillion dollars potentiall at risk, etc.), and got some very interesting answers, please refer to that too for some keen insight and additional information... Is American in trouble? Are bank deposits for once at risk? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Api3DBdrJ1_y2c_kH0Rmw9Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080915212838AAJlEea What I want to know is... Are we really in this deep of trouble, What the economists are saying.???.. "Once in century kind of phenomenon!" "This is the financial storm of the century!" "Congress must recapitalize FDIC immediately!" "1 trillion at risk, FDIC can only cover $50 billion!", etc... Someone please explain what is going on and what is going to happen, or your opinions on this please.

Do you know Obama's plan for DEFENSE? Barack Obama's Plan Invest in a 21st Century Military Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama believes that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats. Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families. Leadership from the Top: Barack Obama will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe. Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: An Obama administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama will end the Bush administration's stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect. Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face: Barack Obama believes we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines. Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama has committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world. Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power. Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises. National Missile Defense: An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public. Ensure Freedom of Space: An Obama administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack. Protect the U.S in Cyberspace: An Obama administration will work in cooperation with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats. Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves Barack Obama will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. He will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. He will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits. Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: An Obama administr

McCain clarifies 'FUNDAMENTALS' as workers, small business. Alzhiemer's, out of touch, or more of the same? Responding to criticism over his comment from earlier in the day that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong," John McCain defined those fundamentals. "My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals, the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America and I think they're strong," McCain said. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1401952.aspx What?!?! The "fundamentals, the American worker" are strong? The same day McCain made this statement 50,000 workers found out they were going to lose their jobs or be laid off. The number of unemployed workers rose by 592,000 to 9.4 million in August. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/76/43.php http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2008/09/hp_plans_mass_layoffs_at_eds.html The fundamentals, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America and I think they're strong," McCain said. The NY Times reports that small businesses "are encountering more restrictions at lending institutions, making it harder to get the credit necessary to expand or, in some cases, stay afloat. Last month, a Federal Reserve report found that a third of banks in the United States had tightened their lending standards for small-business loans." 3 of the 5 major investment banks are now gone. That's fundamentally strong? Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday that the US is in a 'once-in-a-century' financial crisis. The reality is that the US economy is fundamentally in the toilet. The American workers can't innovate when they don't have a job. Entrepreneurs and small business can't flourish when they don't have access to credit. There are three possible explanations for John McCain's statements yesterday: 1. Is he completely out of touch with what's happening in this country? 2. Has Alzheimer's kicked in and he's thinks it's the 90's? 3. Has he taken a page from the current administration ( "Mission accomplished" & "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job,") believing that if he says everything is fine over and over again American people will believe it's true? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/business/25sbiz.html

9/11 reality check part 2? 1. THE COVER UP Someone had foreknowledge of the attacks. In the weeks leading up to 9/11 someone made a series of investments that would have paid off in huge profits because of the attacks. This is well documented and undisputed. This person specifically invested in the two airliners used in the attacks, anticipating windfall profits from any drop in the stock prices of these companies. This is solid evidence that at least one person in the United States had detailed information that something bad was going to happen to the specific airlines that were to be used in the attack. We have been told that the person who made these investments never claimed the profits. We are expected to believe that this explains why his or her identity is unavailable. This is absolutely untrue. This is not an instance in which someone was waiting to pick up a package at an airport locker. This is a case of a financial institution processing an investment transaction for an individual. This CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ANONYMOUSLY! The identity of this person who had foreknowledge of the attack is know and this person’s identity is being protected by our government and this is a fact! Period, end of story. WHO MADE THE INVESTMENT? Identify this person and you have someone who very probably had detailed foreknowledge of the events. The fact that the profits were never collected is even more suspicious and incriminating. The fact that the identity of this person remains unknown is even more suspicious. The only possible conclusion is that this person is known to the government and that his or her identity is being protected. There has been a clear and concerted cover up regarding the person who tried to profit from events he or she knew were coming. The people who could easily clear this up, but who chose to close any further investigation into the matter are not underlings. They are officials who answer directly to the President of the United States. Check. 2. BUILDING 7 On September 11th, Towers One and Two collapsed after suffering direct hits by airliners. Building 7 was neither hit by an airliner nor damaged severely by flying debris, but at 5:20 p.m. it collapsed in the exact same accordion style of the other two towers. The official explanation by FEMA investigators claimed that WTC 7 fell as a result of burning for 7 hours. Several weeks after the events of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, the new owner of the WTC was interviewed on TV. At this time he openly acknowledged the decision to pull Building 7. This was a public statement in which the owner of the WTC agreed to the destruction of the building. This decision was never explained and was never questioned by the Kean Commission. The conflicting report of the FEMA investigators was also never explained. Pulling a building requires weeks, if not months of preparation. Explosives have to be carefully and strategically placed and wired. How was it possible to pull a building without first preparing for its demolition? Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS A CONFESSION! Checkmate. Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth. We have solid evidence that the official investigation stopped short of delving into questions that could have supplied answers. We have solid proof that something is very, very wrong. There is a mountain of unanswered questions concerning the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Anyone willing to listen or look at the inconsistencies would have to draw an obvious conclusion: the official explanation of the events of 9/11 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract the American people from investigating the truth. There can be no denying that there are a number of strange and puzzling occurrences that have never been, and seemingly cannot be explained. Perhaps the abundance of startling and damning information is too incredible to be accepted easily by the millions of Americans who have bought into the corporate media's version of the events. So many people in this country can not deal with, or accept any real challenge to the official explanation that allows for no foreknowledge or cover up by their government. Even if most Americans were to be presented with clearly corroborated facts or cold evidence, they would probably refuse to even consider the involvement of their elected leaders in a tragedy of such huge proportions. The official story, however, collapses after an examination of the two questions just raised. Very simply put, case closed. We do not need to pull an OJ here and bury the obvious under more evidence than the jury can handle. Show the Bronco chase and the blood evidence, and rest the prosecution. Otherwise we risk badly confusing a jury of the uninformed. It is vital that the evidence based community encourage the American public to question the events for themselves. Two questions of this magnitude are enough to raise reasonable doubt. Two such questions that have gone uninvestigated and unexplained are enough to arouse curiosity, We’re in a very dangerous game, here, and all of us are players. Much of what happened on September 11th remains at best unclear, and at worst terribly suspicious. The reality that the President of the United States spent more than 18 months resisting an official investigation into the most devastating tragedy in our history is in itself an outrage. But the reality that there is no official body still seeking answers to vital questions is an even greater outrage. And if that remains the case, we all will have been checkmated, en masse. Editor's NOTE: People might comment on this article by calling it a conspiracy theory. This is their usual way of dismissing the facts. I ask you, where exactly is there “theory” on this page? What elements of this article are in dispute? This is not a theory, this article poses questions that have not been answered and the people who call the results of the independent 9/11 research community “conspiracy theories” have yet to qualify their assertion. You can not simply call something a “theory” just because you have not looked closely enough to see the facts that have been presented. If you call this a theory you are in denial. Very simply put, you can not debate this issue. Many people will dismiss this, as they do all evidence that goes against what they want to believe, yet when asked what their criteria is for discerning between theory and fact, they will not have a logical answer. This is not theory and neither are the facts that have been brought to light by the many people involved in the legitimate independent 9/11 research community. Watch Loose Change Second Edition On Line Free - Click Here! - This is a MUST watch video for anybody who wants to know more about the events of 9/11 than you have heard on your TV sets! An URGENT Message from the Editor! 9/11 Truth Calling Oprah! - I submit to my fellow 9/11 truth seekers and truth bearers that our effort to alert the public will be victorious if Oprah Winfrey gets on board. TvNewsLIES Challenges Believers of the Official Version of 9/11: - Where the Hell is YOUR proof? They Are Not “Conspiracy Theories” - They Are, in Fact, “Discoveries” 9/11-PNAC, 9/11-PNAC - SHOULD BE THE #1 TOPIC OF DISCUSSION A WAKE-UP CALL THE ALTERNATIVE AND LIBERAL MEDIA: TO STOP IGNORING 9/11 AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY WHY AMERICANS REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE 9/11 EVIDENCE!!! - The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if presented with a mountain of evidence. - Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: ALMOST PERFECT ABOUT 9/11! Before you call this a “Conspiracy Theory” read this! Learn the difference between theory and fact! Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 - On-line videos and in depth analysis. 9/11 Video Selection How Building Implosions Work well you dont read so well do you? bc............why dont you wont answers dont all those deaths mean anything to you....the Goverment knows who bought those put orders.why cwont they release the names? why? bc............why dont you wont answers dont all those deaths mean anything to you....the Goverment knows who bought those put orders.why want they release the names? why? ZORRO this is the biggest part of our "yard"

Anyone else miss the Clinton/Obama debates? I do lol TYPICAL BARACK OBAMA VS. HILLARY CLINTON DEMOCRATIC DEBATE QUESTION: What is your plan for the economy? CLINTON: My main agenda for my Presidency is to turn our economy around. My $110 billion package includes $40 billion in tax rebates for working and middle-class families. These rebates should meet the principles that I have outlined: they should be temporary and fiscally responsible; they should be fast-acting; and they should be targeted to working and middle-class families who need help the most. In particular, the rebates should not be partially or completely denied to tens of millions of lower income taxpayers, as was the case with President Bush’s plan during the last economic contraction. My package also includes a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures; a comprehensive plan to end the housing crisis with a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a 5 year freeze on interest rates on subprime mortgages; $25 billion in immediate energy assistance to tens of millions of families; $5 billion in accelerated energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth; and $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work. OBAMA: Uh...eh....uh...you know, its for change by changing Washington and..uh...turn this economy around! QUESTION: What is your plan for the American health care system? CLINTON: I unveiled the third part of my plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance. Building on her proposals to rein in costs and to insist on value and quality, her American Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will: The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage. The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare. A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage. Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality. Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs. Strengthening Security: The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs. End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums. Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings. Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information. Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible. Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care. Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage. Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost. my plan will: Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage. Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans. Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage. Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care. Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness. Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending. A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers. Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000. OBAMA: Ah....eh... its time for change! Time to change the....uh....um..health care system! QUESTION: What is your plan for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? CLINTON: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. "We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever. "Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now." If President Bush does not end the war, when I am president, I will. My three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. I had been figh I will bring our troops home inside my first 60 days in office as President of the United States of America. OBAMA: uh......look! we need to change Washington by bringing our troops home and change Washington...Thats the president America needs...uh...and I will be that president I think.... QUESTION: What is your plan for our Education? CLINTON: Forty-two percent of all new jobs this decade will require some post-secondary education. That's a big jump from even six and a half years ago, when it was only about 29 percent. Countries across the world, from Japan to South Korea, from Canada to Ireland, are educating their young people at higher rates than we are in America. That is news. Our higher education system has historically been the envy of the world. We know that in other countries (inaudible) the future was determined at the age of 12 or 16. But they have changed, and they now value college much more, and the rates of young people going to college are actually higher than we have now in America. And China and India are not far behind. When it comes to higher education, we should not be playing catch-up with the world, we should continue to be leading, because the skills and knowledge of our workforce will determine whether America can compete and win in the 21st century. Americans work harder than anybody in the world. When you measure productivity, which is a term for determining how much output we get per hour, per worker, Americans are by far the hardest-working people. But there is a mismatch between what Americans are being compensated for in terms of all

Social Darwinism? Social Darwinism Social Darwinism is a descriptive term given to a kind of social theory that draws an association between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the sociological relations of humanity. Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes meant that that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems. "Social Darwinism" is most associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer, although researchers such as David Weinstein have argued that Spencer was not a "coarse Social Darwinist." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/) In Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) Spencer wrote: "this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout." Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Thomas Malthus, who is also cited as a Social Darwinist author. Malthus's 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, for example, argued that as increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest. Some historians have suggested that the Malthusian theory and similar concepts were used by the British to justify the continued export of agricultural produce from Ireland, even as the Irish were suffering from famine, in particular the Great Famine of 1845-1849. The 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond was seen by its author as continuing the debate over Social Darwinism. Diamond formulated a compelling argument that observed differences of technological and social development among populations resulted from environmental factors enhanced by the passage of time. Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism. Such criticisms are often leveled, for example, on evolutionary psychology, even though it makes no political or moral claims. Similarly, capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism, is sometimes equated with Social Darwinism because it adopts a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity. Supporters of capitalism respond that their goal is specifically to avoid ineffective economic behavior, and does not require or condone "letting the weak starve". American Dream The phrase the American Dream came into the American vocabulary starting in 1867 when writer, Horatio Alger came out with his book "Ragged Dick." It was a rags-to-riches tale of a poor orphan boy in New York City who saves his pennies, works hard and eventually becomes rich. It became the model that through honesty, hard work and strong determination, the American Dream was available to anyone willing to make the journey. The American Dream is the concept widely held in the United States of America, that through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve prosperity. These were the values of the original pioneers who crossed the American plains when Europeans first came to America. What the American dream has become is a question under constant discussion. The origin of the American dream stems from the departure in government and economics from the models of the Old World. This allowed unprecedented freedom, especially the possibility of dramatic upward social mobility. Additionally, from the Revolutionary War well into the later half of the nineteenth century, many of America's physical resources were unclaimed and often undiscovered, allowing the possibility of coming across a fortune through relatively little, but lucky investment in land or industry. The development of the Industrial Revolution defined the mineral and land wealth which was there in abundance, contrary to the environmental riches such as huge herds of bison and diversity of forests, for the original American Indians. Many early Americans prospectors headed west of the Rocky Mountains to buy acres of cheap land in hopes of finding deposits of gold. The American dream was a driving factor not only in the Gold Rush of the mid to late 1800s, but also in the waves of immigration throughout that century and the following. Impoverished western Europeans escaping the Irish potato famines in Ireland, the Highland clearances in Scotland and the aftermath of Napoleon in the rest of Europe came to America to escape a poor quality of life at home. They wanted to embrace the promise of financial security and constitutional freedom they had heard existed so widely in the United States. Nearing the twentieth century, major industrialist personalities became the new model of the American Dream, many beginning life in the humblest of conditions but later controlling enormous corporations and fortunes. Perhaps most notable here were the great American capitalists Andrew Carnegie and Nelson Rockefeller. This acquisition of great wealth demonstrated that if you had talent, intelligence, and a willingness to work extremely hard you were guaranteed at least moderate success as a result. The key difference here from the Old World societal structure is that the antiquated monarchies of Western Europe and their post-feudal economies actively oppressed the peasant class. They also required high levels of taxation which crippled development. America, however, was built by people who were consciously free of these constraints. There was a hope for egalitarianism. Martin Luther King invoked the American Dream in what is perhaps his most famous speech: "Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream." (I have a dream) Horatio Alger, Jr. Horatio Alger, Jr. (January 13, 1832 - July 18, 1899) was a 19th-century American author, a leading proponent of Social Darwinism during the Gilded Age (1865-1900), who wrote over 130 dime novels, describing how down-and-out boys were able to achieve the American dream of wealth and success through hard work, courage, determination, and concern for others. Poorly written and repetitive, the novels declined in popularity as Alger's target audience grew more sophisticated. Nevertheless, at the time of their writing they were bestsellers, and Alger's books actually rivaled those of Mark Twain in popularity. As the American dream took shape, Alger gave hope for a brighter future to millions of young men who were then living on the brink of society. Alger was born in Revere, Massachusetts to a stern Unitarian minister who wanted his son to follow him into the clergy. He attended Harvard where he studied under Henry Wadsworth Longfellow with the intention of one day becoming a poet. After graduation he found work as a journalist and schoolteacher. Rejected by the Union Army because of his asthma, he took a tour of Europe where he finally decided to pursue the ministry. He took a position in Cape Cod but left for New York City rather suddenly in 1866, ostensibly to pursue a career in writing. Church records uncovered after Alger's death indicate that he was quietly dismissed for having sexual relations with several boys in his parish. The move to New York was a turning point in Alger's career. He was immediately drawn into the work of impoverished young bootblacks, newspaper boys, and peddlers, and even took a young Chinese immigrant named Sam into his home as a ward (Sam was killed in a carriage accident a few years later). It was this world, coupled with the austere values that Alger received at home, which formed the basis of the first novel in his Ragged Dick series (1867). The book was an immediate success, spurring a vast collection of sequels and similar novels, including Luck and Pluck (1869) and Tattered Tom (1871), all with the same theme: the rise from rags to riches. In fact, the theme became synonymous with Alger. Essentially, all of Alger's novels are the same: a young boy struggles through hard work to escape poverty. Critics, however, are quick to point out that it is not the hard work itself that rescues the boy from his fate, but rather some extraordinary act of bravery or honesty, which brings him into contact with a wealthy elder gentleman, who takes the boy in as a ward. The boy might return a large sum of money that was lost or rescue someone from an overturned carriage, bringing the boy�and his plight�to the attention of some wealthy individual. It has been suggested that this reflects Alger's own patronizing attitude to the boys he tried to help. Despite his remarkable literary output, Alger never became rich from his writing. He gave most of his money to homeless boys and in some instances was actually conned from his earnings by the boys he tried to help. Nevertheless, by the time he died in 1899, his books could be found in virtually every home and library in America. His books may no longer be as popular today as they once were, but the moral messages they relayed were an important factor in the development of the American dream in the 20th century. At the time of his death, Alger was living with his sister Augusta. She destroyed all of his personal papers, hoping to avoid scandal in the rigid atmosphere of the Victorian Era. Since 1947, the Horatio Alger Association has bestowed an annual award on "outstanding individuals in our society who have succeeded in the face of adversity" and scholarships "to encourage young people to pursue their dreams with determination and perseverance". (Source: Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License - see Copyrights for details). Tell me about your "American Dream." What would you like to achieve in your lifetime? What steps do you plan to take to accomplish your goals? Do you think the American Dream can be reached − will Americans ever be satisfied with what we have or will we continually desire more? Is this good or bad? Why?

Politicians and their Illusion of Power? Take a look a give your opinion:? Critics accuse libertarians of reveling in government failures. Yes and No. No one is pleased to see the destruction caused by government policies, whether small scale, as when a tighter regulation causes business failures, or large scale, as when wars destroy life for millions. The kernel of truth to the claim is this: the failure of government illustrates something extremely important about the structure of reality that most people are likely to forget. It comes down to this: statesmen and public officials, no matter how powerful they may be, cannot finally control social outcomes. If I might offer a summary of a point emphasized in all of Mises's works: the structure of society and world affairs generally is shaped by human actions, stemming from imaginative human minds working out individual subjective valuations, and their interactions with the material world, which is governed by laws that are beyond human control. What that means is that you and I cannot on our own, even if we have maximum political power, control all of human society, and especially not its economic side. Let's first consider an example from current popular wisdom about the manufacturing base. Many products that were once made in the US – thinking here of televisions, pianos, firecrackers, plastics, and bicycles--are now made in China. This has caused a great deal of alarm--all unwarranted, so far as sound economics is concerned. But let's say we have the ambition to change this social outcome. Anyone is free to build a bicycle and attempt to market it to willing buyers. Let's say you rent some property, hire the workers, acquire all the necessary capital, and then put your bike on sale. In order to cover your costs and make a profit, you find that you must price your bikes above the going market price. Maybe you can persuade people that you have a special product that is better than the others. Or maybe yours will sit on the floor. Or maybe you will have to lower your price and you will find that your revenue does not cover your costs, and you have to go out of business. No matter what you decide, this much is clear: you are not dictating the outcome. You wanted to build bikes, but it is the consuming public that decides whether it is in our interest to do so. There is nothing you have to say about it. You cannot make people fork over the money. I would venture to suggest that you will ultimately come to the conclusion that you should be doing other things besides attempting to keep up with other businesses that have lower labor and capital costs and hence can make a profit through selling goods at much lower prices. But let's say you decide that you don't want to bow to the realities of the market. Instead you lobby Congress to tax everyone who buys a bike from overseas. The tax is high enough that you can continue to charge exorbitant prices for your bikes. You make a profit. But at what expense? The consumers who buy your bikes have less income left over for other pursuits, whether consumption, saving, or investment. The workers you are employing are being kept from other pursuits as well, and the capital you are consuming is not available for other projects. Ultimately, you have skewed the entire economic system in a way that benefits you at everyone else's expense. Others have found a way to do what you are doing much more efficiently, but because you lobbied and got your way, society is prevented from benefiting from others' innovations. And how long must this distorted system last? That you managed to tax everyone to benefit you does nothing to change the reality that others can do what you are doing more cheaply and better. Do workers really want to be employed in an industry that is something of an artifice? Do consumers really want to pay high prices just so that you can continue to indulge in your bike-making passion? Clearly not. At some point, people will catch on to the racket, and find other ways to go about acquiring bikes. Maybe they will exploit loopholes in the law that allow them to import bike parts. An industry of do-it-yourself bike building becomes a threat to your profits. Or perhaps black markets will take over. Or maybe people will turn away from bikes altogether and starting trying out new forms of informal transportation. Skateboards are fitted with handlebars. Gas-powered scooters develop a peddle-only option. The very definition of a bike comes into question. Increasingly, enforcement will have to become ever more onerous. At some point in this game, we face a choice. We can continue to impose an ever more absurd and preposterous system of regulations and protections just so that you can benefit, or we can bow to reality and let in foreign bikes for consumer purchase. Let's say your tariff lasts a year or even ten years. What will it accomplish? In that time, vast resources are wasted. Consumers of all sorts are exploited. Capital is consumed in economically wasteful ways. People are pushed around and the police powers of the state grow. It does society no good at all. My point is that whatever the fate of the so-called manufacturing base, there is nothing in the long run that can be done to turn it in one direction or another. The fate of manufacturing is in the hands of consumers at large, and subject to the laws of economics which no man can repeal. It is the outcome of human choice. Now, the Bush administration has thought otherwise and imposed a huge range of protections to benefit its supporters and people who the administration hoped would become its supporters. The result has been to skew the world economy, hobble markets, delay inevitable transitions, and impose massive social costs. What this example shows is that governments are not omnipotent. Many try to be, and no government is liberal by nature. But there are limits. Governments bump up against human valuations time and again. Even in the highly rarified event of a despotic government that rules a population unanimously in support of despotism, government still bumps up against the structure of the world, which resists control. Let us consider another example. Let us say that government desires a strong dollar. But it still wants to print dollars and ship them around the world. In this case, there is nothing that government can do to insure the dollar’s strength against depreciation. Nothing. This is due to the laws of economics. All else equal, the value of a currency in terms of goods falls as its quantity increases. Governments that desire otherwise can only shake their fist in anger. The same is true domestically. The government wants economic recovery before a recession has fully run its course. It thereby drops interest rates, spends vast amounts of money to gin up demand, and otherwise encourages as much consumption as possible. These tactics can result in some short-term gains but it doesn't work in the long run. These tactics deplete savings and capital and weaken the foundation for solid future growth. The issue of the price of prescription drugs will be a big one in this coming campaign. The problem is high prices. Popular wisdom has it that this is because of the greed of the medical industry. The truth is that these high prices are partly a result of subsidized demand due to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the restricted supply due to patent laws. In other words, the political class is responsible for the high prices. It's true that the pharmaceutical industry is not complaining. In fact, high prices are precisely what its friends in government want to bring about. They may regret that the poor have to pay the higher prices, but not enough to do anything substantive about it. Prices would plummet today if patents were repealed, free trade (including re-importation) allowed, and subsidized demand ended by the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid. But no one wants to consider that solution, so Congress creates ever more intrusive programs designed to control prices, keeping the prices high enough to satisfy the industry but low enough to reduce the political clamor. The problem is that the government can't have it both ways. It cannot reward its friends with high prices and keep consumers happy at the same time. The current system with its large subsidies is only creating massive new liabilities in programs that cannot be funded in perpetuity without massive tax increases that no one is willing to advocate. Absent tax increases, the only answer is inflation, which taxes us in other ways. One way to think about government is as a rat wandering through a maze with no escape. There is no magic solution to getting around basic economic laws. All lunches must be paid for by someone, prices cannot be both high and low at the same time, and all attempts to coerce generate counter-reactions. In short, there is no alternative universe in which the fantasies of politicians come true. But try telling that to the political class. The last thing they want to hear is that their power is limited, that their will is not a way. They are prone to believe that membership in the political class comes with the privilege of shaping the world to their liking. If you read the social science literature, you find the same error at work on a nearly universal basis. Very rarely does anyone come along and say: great theory but it has nothing to do with reality. You are just playing intellectual games. Socialism was really nothing other than an intellectual game. People from the ancient world to the present conjured up some vision of how they would like the world to work and then advocated a series of measures of how to achieve it. Mises and his generation explained that their vision was fundamentally at odds with reality. In the real world, capital must have price rooted in exchange of private property in order for it to be employed in its highest-valued capacity. It solves nothing to say that everyone should own capital collectively. This was the equivalent of pointing out that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. In some ways, what we do as commentators on economic affairs is to follow this model again and again. The other day, a candidate for president suggested that the answer to our economic woes was more regulation. He had it all figured out in his mind. Immediately, free-market economists from all over the world joined forces to point out that his goal of higher economic productivity could not be achieved this way. It was an unwelcome message but one necessary to deliver regardless. The experience of Iraq has provided myriad examples of the same. The US wants to pump oil. It wants to start factories, stores, and commerce generally. But it refuses to put private owners in charge. As a result, all its military muscle has amounted to very little at great expense. It is a classic example of how governments fail when they try to fight against forces they cannot control. Factories in Iraq that have gone into operation have done so without support of the occupying government. And think of the war generally. At the outset, the visionaries in the Bush administration imagined that Iraq was really a very simple problem to solve. It only needed to be decapitated and the magic dust of the US presence would otherwise create an orderly and prosperous society that would be a model for the region. The reality hit. Crime was unleashed. Feuding political factions clamored for control. Production stopped. Society flew into chaos. This was not because of the absence of the political leadership. It was because of the presence of foreign martial law in a country that was seething in resentment against the US. Time and again, we have seen evidence that the Iraq war only accomplished the opposite of its aims. Its purpose was to find weapons, punish terrorism, and bring order to the region. Instead it has fueled terrorism and brought new levels of disorder to the region. Not having done that, the war is then re-defined in terms that reflect whatever government has done: namely to toss out and capture Saddam, In this sense, the war was like any other government program: bringing about the opposite of its stated intentions and doing so at greater expense. Thus do we see the intersection between foreign and domestic policy. Government is famously ham-handed at home and similarly incompetent abroad. No matter how much government claims that it is master of the universe, it constantly confronts forces beyond its control. In all the talk of the calamity of this war, never forget the broader picture: what an incredible opportunity was squandered after the end of the Cold War. The US had emerged as the universally acknowledged ideological victor in that forty-year struggle. That the Cold War was not actually an ideological struggle so much as a classic standoff between two empires is irrelevant for understanding the implications of this fact: totalitarian communism collapsed while the free economic system of the market remained standing in total triumph. The world was ready for a new period of genuine liberalism, and looking to the US. On the verge of an amazing period of technological advance, we were perfectly situated to lead the way. There had never been a time in US history when George Washington's foreign policy made more sense. A beacon of liberty. Trade with all, belligerence toward none. Commercial engagement with everyone, political engagement with as few as possible. The hand of friendship. Good will. This was the prescription for peace and freedom. It was within our grasp. Our children might have grown up in a world without major political violence. A world of peace and plenty. It could have been. But it was not to be, mainly because George W.'s father decided that he wanted to go down in the history books for doing something big and important. What else but war? The US was now the world's only superpower and itching for some fight somewhere. It's a bit like a playground filled with wimps and one boy with a black belt in karate who never absorbed the lesson in how and where to use his fighting skills. And then there was this oil-drilling dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, and Bush decided to intervene. Twelve years later, the US is still there, causing unrelenting havoc for those poor people. Here at home we are given constant examples of the huge gulf that separates government's perceptions of itself versus the reality. The Bush administration wanted to give the steel industry a boost. The administration established tariffs, which amounts to a tax on all consumers of steel. American manufacturers faced a choice of paying the tax to buy imported steel or paying the higher prices for domestic steel. Those who could do neither had to cut back production and hiring in other areas. Other consumers had to pay higher prices, which diverted income from other pursuits. As for the steel industry itself, the tariffs did nothing to help it achieve greater efficiency, which is the only way to deal with more efficient competitors. They only ended up subsidizing inefficiency. Even then, it wasn't enough. During the period of tariffs, the industry dramatically consolidated in order to become more efficient in other ways. Once faced with the prospect of trade wars, the ultimate cost of protectionism, the Bush administration pulled back and repealed the new tariffs, thereby landing the industry in exactly the same predicament it was in before the tariffs were past. As for commercial society as a whole, it paid dramatically higher steel costs, and faced sporadic shortages, for absolutely no reason. Faced with failure on every front, the Bush administration did the right thing and repealed the tariffs. Not that it was honest about the failure. Instead it claimed its policy worked so well that it could now repeal it. This is like a physician prescribing poison and then changing his mind. He can't but try to put the best spin on it, I suppose. But what a beautiful example of the powerlessness of government this is! The Bush administration wanted to save American industry and only ended up vastly raising the costs of doing all forms of business. More cutbacks are inevitable as steel production shifts to other countries and the US finds its comparative advantage elsewhere. Much legislative energy is poured into helping some groups gain favorable treatment in the workplace. I'm thinking here of the usual litany of victim groups as identified according to race, ability, sex, national origin, religion, and the like. Have these laws actually helped the group in question? The results are mixed at best. If you send people out into the workforce with a high price attached to their heads – and the prospect of a lawsuit is a very high price indeed – you only make employers less likely to hire them. I don’t doubt that some people have been helped by these laws, but they are not the people most in need of help. Today, the disabled, blacks, women, and religious minorities go in search of jobs with a major problem: employers fear them on the margin, and, on the margin, are less likely to hire them relative to others, provided they can get away with it. It is the least qualified among them who pay the highest price. A good test case is disability: it is a documented fact that unemployment among the truly disabled is higher today than it was when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. Because libertarians know in advance that government policies are destructive, we tend to focus our editorial energy on pointing to its destructive effects. But in our zeal to draw attention to issues others ignore, let us not forget the bigger picture. There are always limits to what the government can do, and the government's destruction is always accompanied by examples of great creativity on the part of the market. Even as government dominates the headlines, private entrepreneurs are busy every day working to improve products and services that improve our lives. They do it without taxing us or regulating us, or making us suffer through tedious elections or political debates. They make their products and offer them to us in a way that pleases the consuming public the most. We can choose whether we want them or not. Consider the success of Wal-Mart. If government had set out to create a volume discounter that made a world of material goods and groceries available to the multitude in all countries, it might have tried for a thousand years and not created anything resembling this company. Even the military has relented and now routinely points its employees not to its on-base stores but to Wal-Mart, Office Depot, and others for the best prices. Foreign development aid is another example. It took decades to get the message across, but today finance ministers in the developing world understand that they have far more to gain through integration into the world economy than from development aid and all the restrictive policies that come with it. Today, as Sudha Shenoy points out, the largest resistance to new trade deals comes from the developing world, not because they don't want trade but because they desire trade without the labor and environmental controls the US demands. The same is true in the area of communications. In the last century, governments aspired to control them all: the phones, the mails, the media. Today, we see that government, in practice, controls very little of the communications industry, despite every attempt to hobble private enterprise. In that same vein, a major issue for everyone these days are computer viruses and spam, which threaten to make our chief mode of communication less reliable. Congress passes ineffectual legislation against spam and viruses, while private enterprise has given us dozens of means of winning the battle. Private enterprise creates; government destroys. That is the great economic lesson of our times and all times. Of course there is one way in which government never fails. It can loot. It can gain footholds into society's command centers. It can punish enemies. It can even indoctrinate people in its preferred vision of the world through propaganda. This is the best way to understand the public school system. It doesn't work to educate but it does work to transfer vast sums from the private to the public sector. And here too, we see the power of private enterprise: booster clubs in public schools represent a de facto source of privatization, and the clubs and groups connected to them are the only really successful things going on in public school. We’ll hear much in the coming months about all the wonderful reforms politicians are going to bring us. This is the time when politicians vie for our allegiance by telling all about their ideas and vision for the future. As usual, they will parse their words in ways to maximize the numbers of people who are persuaded and minimize the amount of trouble they get into for inadvertently telling people something they don't want to hear. As an aside, whoever came up with this idea of a mass democracy just wasn't thinking things through very clearly. Nothing runs well by majority vote, to say nothing of the fact that a truly free society shouldn't be "run" at all; it works on its own without would-be masters-and-commanders grasping at the helm. Let me then offer to you my own top ten list of political lies you are told, all designed to make you believe that government should have more power than it already has, so that it can create more of the disasters we are accustomed to: 10. My new program will generate jobs. Truth: only the market generates jobs on net. 9. My education program will reform schools so that they leave no child behind. Truth: the public schools do not work for the same reason no government program can work. They exist outside the market economy. 8. My program will save industry x. Truth: industry must be part of the market or else it is not really industry at all. 7. I won't raise your taxes but I will pass lots of new programs: Truth: all programs must be paid for. 6. As president, I will pursue a humble foreign policy. Truth: nothing in the office of the president encourages humility. 5. This war is humanitarian and winnable. Truth: war is nothing but a government program on a massively destructive scale, and just as error prone. 4. My reform will bring market-based competition. Be on the lookout for this lie, which market partisans are likely to believe. There is only one kind of genuine market, and it is rooted in private property and nothing else. 3. We will secure the nation. Truth: government cannot provide security better than markets, any more than it can provide food or houses better than the market. 2. Government is compassionate. Truth: men who seek power over the lives of others are the coldest, cruelest humans of all. 1. You can't love your country and hate your government. Truth: A person who loves his country loves liberty first. One hundred years from now, the great story of the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century will be the vast improvements in life wrought by technology. Consider the web, the cell phone, the PDA, the affordable laptop computer, advances in medicine, and the spread of prosperity to all corners of the globe. What has government had to do with this? The answer is: nothing contributory. It has worked only to impede progress, and we can only be thankful that it hasn't succeeded. Through all of human history, governments have caused frightening levels of bloodshed and horror, but in the end, what has prevailed is not power but the market economy. Even today governments can only play catch-up. This is because of the reasons that Mises outlined. Government cannot control the human mind, so it cannot, in the long run, control the choices people make. It cannot control economic forces, which are a far more powerful and permanent feature of the world than any government anyway. Governments have a propensity to overreach in so many areas of life that their exercise of power itself leads to their own undoing. The overreach can take many forms: financial, economic, social, and military. In this way, and with enough passion for liberty burning in the hearts of the citizenry, governments can be responsible for their own undoing. It comes about as a result of overestimating the capacity of power and underestimating its limits. I believe this is happening in our time. It may not be obvious when taking the broad view, but when you look at the status of a huge range of government programs and institutions, what you see is a government that is at once enormously powerful and rich, but also fragile and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Events of the last year indicate just how far the government has slipped in its ability to manage the economy, society, culture, and world order. Despite the exalted status of the state today, the vast and sprawling empire called the US government may in fact be less healthy than it ever has been. A few months back, we had a special speaker come to Auburn, probably the most famous man who has visited us since the Country and Western star Alan Jackson was in town. He was Mikhail Gorbachev, a very interesting figure in the history of nations. He came to power with the reputation of a reformer and instituted many reforms that were designed not to give more liberty to the people, but to stop the unraveling of an empire before it was too late. But it was too late. All his talk of perestroika and glasnost couldn't fool the people, who had become convinced that the Soviet machine was something of a hoax. The empire unraveled not because of him, but despite his efforts to save it. When it came time to make the critical decision of whether to try to hold the empire together by more and more force, or not, history had already made the choice for him. The empire dissolved in the blink of an eye. Not too many months later, he was out of a job, not because he was recalled in some formal process, but because the forces of history had run him over. Democratic governments are not immune from the forces of history that overthrew Soviet tyranny. All governments overreach and no government is permanent. So let us fear government but not exaggerate its powers. It can cause enormous damage and it must always be fought. But in this struggle, we are on the right side of history. The power of human choice, aided by the logic of economics and the laws that operate without any bureaucrat's permission, are our source of hope for the future. _______________________________ Llewellyn H. Rockwell http://www.mises.org/story/1396

Do you belong to the "new Church of Global Warming"? "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA January 17, 2003 My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack. It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. But let's look at how it came to pass. Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion. One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way. Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day. But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother. And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings. The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks. Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage. Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer. The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate. At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows: Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc (The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.) The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on. And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic. According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute. But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later. This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold. The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter. I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: "Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish." Hard science if ever there was. At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now? Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…" I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light. Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees. And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. But back to our main subject. What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance. Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views. At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb." Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant. I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends. That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended. What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring. A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened. What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke. In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people. Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke. As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed. As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard? And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it? To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds? Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd. Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam? Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about. Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it. I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure. But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area. The answer to all these questions is no. We don't. In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides. And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one. Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science. Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this. I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what. Well, I'll tell you. In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists? Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to? When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down. Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic. Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church. Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science. Thank you very much.

Liberals are followers and Bush is a leader. Its better to be right than popular? President Bush's Accomplishments Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs. Budget, Taxes & Economy 1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. 2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. 3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. 5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. 6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. 7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. 8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. 9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. 10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. 11. Signed trade promotion authority. 12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. 13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. 14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. 15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. 16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. 17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. 18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. 19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year. Character & Conduct as President 1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Education & Employment Training 1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. 2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. 3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) 4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. 5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance. 6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. 7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. 8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers. Environment & Energy 1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. 2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. 3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. 6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. 8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Defense & Foreign Policy 1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. 2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured. 3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror. 4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed. 5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network. 6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century. 7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. 8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency. 9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. 10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year. 11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia. 12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. 13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. 14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs. 15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry. 16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006. 17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy. 18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments. 19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year. 20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports. 21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed. Globalization & Internationalism 1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). 2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).* 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. 5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Government Reform 1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises. 2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs. 3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.* 4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers. 5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals. Health 1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free. 2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. 3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes: A 10-year privatization option. Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine. More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors. New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford. Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration 1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. 2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004. 3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield). 4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders. 5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. 6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. 7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones. 8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested. 9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies. 10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability. 11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization. 12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens. 13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications. 14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack. Judiciary & Tort Reform 1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. 2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA. 3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary. 4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims. Politics 1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. 2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes. Second Amendment 1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right. 2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. 3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. 4. *See Globalization & Internationalism. Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism 1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself." 2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world. 3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. 4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved. 5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible. 6. Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. 7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states. 8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa. 9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles: Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law

U.S History help will you please help I am begging!!!!? 1. Who invented bifocal eyeglasses, a clean-burning stove, and helped develop the U.S. postal system? (Points: 3) Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Franklin Elkanah Watson John Stevens 2. What manufacturing concept helped Eli Whitney earn a contract from the federal government? (Points: 3) ginning cotton using machines to reduce the work of slaves using interchangeable parts reaping wheat 3. What contributions did Samuel Slater and Francis Cabot Lowell make to American manufacturing? (Points: 3) They put up huge amounts of their own capital to hire as many people as possible to increase production. They built on practices they had seen in England to improve equipment and production techniques in the textile industry. They persuaded English investors to share their techniques and ideas to get the American textile industry going. They invented machines that not only separated the cotton, but also sorted it according to grades and strengths. 4. What was the main impact of Cyrus McCormick's reaper and John Deere's steel plow on agriculture? (Points: 3) They made large-scale agriculture possible and profitable. They allowed small farmers to keep up with large landowners. They reduced the need for slaves on southern plantations. They opened up more of New England to farming. 5. How did geography affect the development of industry in New England? (Points: 3) The small number of ports limited transportation and trade. Rocky soil and an unpredictable climate made it unsuitable for commercial agriculture. Large deposits of coal there kept factories running at full production. Slow-flowing rivers and streams prevented the use of water as a power source. 6. What helped spur the growth of American industry in the beginning of the nineteenth century? (Points: 3) increased federal support for entrepreneurs trade agreements with France and England trade embargoes and the War of 1812 interstate commerce agreements between New England states 7. Which of the following was the major purpose of improving the roads in nineteenth century America? (Points: 3) to generate toll revenues for the federal government to improve development of a market economy to provide greater comfort for citizens wishing to travel to make westward expansion easier 8. Which construction project connected the Great Lakes to New York City? (Points: 3) the National Road the Erie Canal the Lancaster Turnpike the George Washington Bridge 9. What was an effect of Robert Fulton's development of steamboat travel? (Points: 3) More people were willing to vacation along the waterways. The cost of transporting goods became more expensive for farmers. Westward expansion became much easier. Trade along the Mississippi River began moving in both directions. 10. Which transportation improvement did not make more rapid movement of goods and people across large areas possible? (Points: 3) Conestoga wagons steamboats canals railroads 11. What two areas benefited most from Morse's invention of the telegraph and the speed it brought to communication? (Points: 3) industry and entertainment politics and transportation trade and agriculture commerce and news 12. What was the impact of Morse's telegraph on communication? (Points: 3) It sped up the delivery of news and information, promoting the development of a market economy. It brought a means of rapid communication into the homes of ordinary citizens. It allowed politicians within a state to prepare more efficiently for their congressional sessions. It created international avenues for bringing European investment dollars into the American market. 13. How had the American election process changed by the election of 1828? (Points: 3) Members of the Electoral College were elected by popular vote, not their state legislatures. State legislators earned the right to serve as electors in the Electoral College. Women and blacks were eligible to serve as electors in the Electoral College. State legislatures continued to elect 50% of the electors, but the popular vote determined the rest. 14. Who won the popular vote in the election of 1824? (Points: 3) John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson Henry Clay William Crawford 15. What were John Quincy Adams's qualifications for the presidency when he ran in 1824? (Points: 3) Son of a former president, member of the House of Representatives, from a large southern

Grammar help, please!!~~? The global world made American to realize how the other countries prepare an education for math and science. Jobs are requiring science or engineering training will rise. In the other countries, China graduated 500,000 engineers in 2004, and India, 200,000. The USA graduated 70,000. For an instance of China, they have a strong school curriculum and try to make math and science as standards. That’s why Chinese students are one of the top students in math and science.,On April 25, 2007, US senators passed the bill called as S. 761, the America Competes Act. This was an important bill for the education because in included important issue about education related to math and science. The legislation focuses on three primary areas to improve American competitiveness in the 21st Century. It highlights this; first, increasing research investment, strengthening educational opportunities in science, technology, second, the engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school, and the last thing is developing an infrastructure that will enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States. This bill shows that math and science, and efforts to support them, are vital in keeping Americans educationally competitive. As I see this, government put a lot of efforts to develop the educational program of math and science. Through this bill, American government hopes that this will be impacted on education to lead a foundation of math and science.

Vanity Fair Magazine`s Top 100 people who run America...notice anything odd? 1. Rupert Murdoch, billionaire global media baron financed by the Rothschild, Bronfman and Oppenheimer empires. 2. Steve Jobs, chief executive officer of the Apple computer conglomerate. 3. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, the Internet giant. 4. Stephen Schwarzman and Pete Peterson, founders of the Blackstone Group, a financial investment giant, representing shadowy cliques of plutocratic predators. 5. Warren Buffett, a longtime U.S. satellite of the European Rothschild family and one of the owners of the Washington Post publishing group. 6. Bill Clinton, former president of the United States. 7. Steven Spielberg, Hollywood producer and director, perhaps the most powerful man in the movie industry. 8. Bernard Arnault, French industrialist whose growing empire produces such luxury label items as Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Dom Perignon, among others. 9. Michael Bloomberg, billionaire New York mayor and possible presidential candidate who made his fortune in the financial news information industry. 10. Bill and Melinda Gates, the husband-and-wife team who are the rulers of the Microsoft computer colossas. 11. Carlos Slim Helú, Fortune magazine says this Mexican billionaire of Lebanese descent is the world’s richest man, controlling 200 companies that account for 7% of Mexico’s gross domestic product. 12. H. Lee Scott, president and chief executive of Wal-Mart. 13. Ralph Lauren, fashion industry tycoon. 14. Oprah Winfrey, widely promoted television personality. 15. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg (husband and wife). Diller is a Hollywood figure who is now a major player in the television home shopping business. His wife is a major fashion designer. 16. David Geffen, Hollywood business partner of aforementioned Steven Spielberg and a major movie industry figure in his own right. 17. Howard Stringer, chief executive of the Sony corporation. 18. Richard Parsons, African-American front man was chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors for the Zionist rulers of the Time-Warner media empire. (Recently stepped down.) 19. Al Gore, former vice president of the United States and father-in-law of an heir to the Schiff international banking fortune that financed the Bolshevik Revolution. 20. Larry Ellison, chief executive officer of Oracle, the database software giant known for his patronage of Israeli causes. 21. Herb Allen, head of the influential privately owned investment house of Allen & Co; he convenes an annual conclave of elite industrialists at Sun Valley, Idaho. 22. Jeff Bewkes, recently became CEO at the Time-Warner media empire (which has long been under the influence of the Bronfman family and other Zionist elements). 23. Jeff Bezos, the founder of the Amazon.com book and video Internet powerhouse. 24. Peter Chernin, runs Fox News for Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes sponsors. 25. Leslie Moonves, head of CBS, the fiefdom of the Sarnoff family. 26. Jerry Bruckheimer, Hollywood producer— major films and weekly television. 27. George Clooney, film star and supporter of liberal causes. 28. Bono, rock star & global poverty activist. 29. François Pinault, luxury brands king/art collector 30. Roman Abramovich, Russian oilman and financial wheeler dealer. 31. Ronald Perelman, billionaire cigar monopoly kingpin and head of the Revlon cosmetics giant. 32. Tom Hanks, actor/producer 33. Jacob Rothschild, global banking tycoon of the famed Zionist family and major behind-the-scenes influence in the United States through such associates as non-Jewish Warren Buffett. 34. Robert DeNiro, actor/producer. 35. Howard Schultz, founder of the Starbucks coffee shop chain. 36. Robert Iger, head of the Walt Disney media conglomerate. 37. Giorgio Armani, fashion designer and clothing tycoon. 38. Jeffrey Katzenberg, partner of aforementioned Spielberg and Geffen. 39. Ronald Lauder and Leonard Lauder, rulers of the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire; major figures in theWorld Jewish Congress. 40. George Lucas, Hollywood producer (best known for the Star Wars films and marketing gimmickry empire). 41. Harvey Weinstein and Bob Weinstein, major Hollywood producers. 42. Diane Sawyer and Mike Nichols (husband and wife). Sawyer is a television and “news” personality; Nichols is an influential Hollywood producer and director. 43. Bruce Wasserstein, chief of the powerful Zionist investment house of Lazard and owner of New York magazine. 44. Miuccia Prada, famed fashion icon and handbag designer. 45. Steven Cohen, hedge-fund manager at SAC Capital Advisers. 46. Tom Cruise, actor/producer closely associated with an organization known to have been taken over from within by assets of Israel's intelligence service. 47. Jay-Z , rapper/entrepreneur 48. Ron Meyer, chief of Universal Studios, now under Bronfman family empire control. 49. Frank Gehry, architect. 50. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former actor-turned-governor of California, closely associated with Rothschild family associate Warren Buffett (see above). 51. Henry Kravis, leveraged buy-out king at Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts; his wife is a major player in the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York-based adjunct of the Rothschild family’s London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs. 52. Karl Lagerfeld, head of the Chanel perfume empire. 53. Oscar and Annette de la Renta, fashion designers. 54. Martha Stewart, popular television personality and home products tycoon. 55. Mickey Drexler, chief of the J. Crew fashion company. 56. Michael Moritz, financier previously associated with Google and former journalist who was San Francisco bureau chef for Bronfman-controlled Time magazine. Holds an interest in Pay Pal and inYahoo. 57. Brian Roberts, heads Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet provider. 58. Roger Ailes, runs Fox News channel for Murdoch and associates. 59. Vivi Nevo, Israeli-born international investment tycoon who holds large takes in Time-Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. (One of his principal associates is Israeli arms dealer, Arnon Milchan, a major backer of Israel’s secret nuclear weapons development program.) 60. Mick Jagger, rock star. 61. Jeff Skoll, film producer. 62. Vinod Khosla, Indian-born, American-based major investor in “green” technologies such as solar, clean coal, fuel cells and cellulosic ethanol. 63. Diego Della Valle, major figure in the luxury accessories fashion industry, notably the Tod’s shoe company. 64. Stacey Snider, co-chief of DreamWorks, the Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg combine in Hollywood. 65. Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, major Hollywood producers. 66. John Lasseter, Disney-Pixar studios. 67. George Soros, infamous international wheeler-dealer. 68. Philippe Dauman, runs Viacom media giant for Zionist mogul Sumner Redstone (who also controls CBS). 69. John Malone, runs Liberty Media (Discovery Channel, USA network etc); formerly associated with Jerrold Electronics, founded by Milton Shapp, a devout Zionist who served two terms as governor of Pennsylvania. 70. Sumner Redstone, owner of the Viacom/CBS media giant. 71. Paul Allen, head of Vulcan investment house and co-founder, with Bill Gates (see above) of the Microsoft empire. 72. Eddie Lampert, money manager for major figures in the global elite; member of the secret Skull & Bones fraternity atYale. 73. Leon Black, major investor with controlling influence at Telemundo, Spanish-language broadcasting, Harrah’s casino empire, and Realogy, which controls real-estate companies such as Coldwell Banker and Century 21. 74. Jann Wenner, owner of Rolling Stone magazine 75. Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan Working Title Films, London 76. JerryWeintraub, Hollywood producer. 77. Donatella Versace, fashion empire head. 78. Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times columnist. 79. Tim Russert, NBC news commentator. 80. Charlie Rose, PBS television news commentator and talk show host. 81. Joel Silver, Hollywood film producer. 82. Frank Rich, NewYork Times commentator/ author 83. Jonathan Ive, designer of the iPod, iMac and Iphone. 84. Larry Gagosian, owner of art galleries in New York, London and Los Angeles, closely associated with Zionist billionaires such as David Geffen and S. I. Newhouse Jr., etc. 85. Charles Saatchi, owner of the famed Saatchi Gallery and longtime major figure in the public relations industry. 86. Jean Pigozzi, art collector and close associate of the Rothschild family. 87. Stephen Colbert, television-based political satirist/host. 88. Bill O’Reilly, Fox television conservative talk show host. 89. Jon Stewart, TV personality and pundit. 90. Steve Bing, film producer. 91. Eli Broad, billionaire investor and patron of Zionist causes. 92. Michael Milken, Wall Street predator, ex-convict, and devoted supporter of Israel. 93. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., owner of the NewYork Times media empire. 94. Ron Burkle, supermarket and media magnate (including Motor Trend and Soap Opera Digest). 95. Scott Rudin, Hollywood producer 96. Jimmy Buffett, singer and musician, branching into investments. 97. Steven Rattner, private equity and hedge fund investor, former reporter for The NewYork Times. 98. Arianna Huffington, writer and television personality. 99. Doug Morris, runs Universal Music for its owners, the Zionist Bronfman family and its wide-ranging empire. 100. Jimmy Iovine, head of Interscope Records and closely associated with aforementioned Zionist music tycoon David Geffen. NOW would you be outraged if they 80% of the above were muslim names?

Why do libs avoid President Bush's Accomplishments? President Bush's Accomplishments Spotted at Rightnation.us and GOPUSA.com reprinted here for your pleasure. I encourage people who support Bush to learn how effective our President has been, and liberals ought to browse this too. Just remember, the liberal media can't cover up the truth of his accomplishments. The Bush Administration 2001-2004 Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs. Budget, Taxes & Economy 1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. 2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. 3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. 5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. 6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. 7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. 8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. 9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. 10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. 11. Signed trade promotion authority. 12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. 13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. 14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. 15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. 16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. 17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. 18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. 19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year. Character & Conduct as President 1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Education & Employment Training 1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. 2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. 3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) 4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. 5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance. 6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. 7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. 8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers. Environment & Energy 1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. 2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. 3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. 6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. 8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Defense & Foreign Policy 1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. 2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured. 3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror. 4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed. 5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network. 6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century. 7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. 8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency. 9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. 10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year. 11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia. 12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. 13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. 14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs. 15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry. 16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006. 17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy. 18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments. 19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year. 20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports. 21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed. Globalization & Internationalism 1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). 2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).* 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. 5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Government Reform 1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises. 2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs. 3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.* 4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers. 5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals. Health 1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free. 2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. 3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes: A 10-year privatization option. Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine. More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors. New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford. Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration 1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. 2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004. 3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield). 4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders. 5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. 6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. 7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones. 8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested. 9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies. 10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability. 11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization. 12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens. 13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications. 14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack. Judiciary & Tort Reform 1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. 2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA. 3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary. 4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims. Politics 1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. 2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes. Second Amendment 1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right. 2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. 3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. 4. *See Globalization & Internationalism. Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism 1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself." 2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world. 3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. 4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved. 5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible. 6. Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. 7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states. 8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa. 9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles: Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law

A new kind of politics? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0704060020apr06,1,1855420.story?coll=chi-news-hed&?track=sto-topstory MEXICANS IN CHICAGO: A NEW KIND OF POLITICS Influence on both sides of the border Activists' political power is rising in Chicago and their homeland, as they seek reforms through marches and money Advertisement By Antonio Olivo and Oscar Avila Tribune staff reporters April 6, 2007 To outsiders, the men and women gathered inside a sleepy West Side restaurant may have seemed unlikely power brokers: a janitor, a real estate agent and others hardly known outside their circuit of neighborhood dances and back-yard barbecues. Jose Luis Gutierrez, who plotted strategy with the group as a soccer match flickered on a nearby TV, was himself a wholesale grocer until last year. But Gutierrez is now a top aide to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and he was joined at the table by leaders of Chicago-area Mexican immigrant clubs, the engines behind a new political movement that is making itself felt from Illinois to Michoacan. Gutierrez received smiling nods when he likened the political muscle of the region's 563,000 Mexican immigrants to the power of Irish-Americans in the 19th and 20th Centuries, who came to control the Chicago machine. In May, the strength of Mexicans will be on display when many of the region's 300 immigrant clubs -- known as "hometown associations" -- will help organize a march in downtown Chicago a year after their political coming-out party, demonstrations that flooded the Loop last spring and charged the national immigration debate. For decades Mexican hometown associations have functioned as social networks whose members pooled their money earned here to help build new schools or churches back in Mexico. But leaders in Chicago's largest immigrant group have a more ambitious worldview than their predecessors, even more than the ethnic blocs that preceded them decades ago. Some, like Gutierrez, wield growing influence in both countries. One morning, he's unveiling a blueprint for more immigrant services in Illinois as director of the state's Office of New Americans Policy and Advocacy. The next night, he's brainstorming with activists in his home state of Michoacan about a slate of candidates for Mexico's congress. An active role in Mexican politics might seem at odds with building political influence here. But Gutierrez and others say they form a budding new political consciousness among Mexican immigrants -- a "third nation" of sorts that transcends the border, advancing the community's cause on both sides. "The nation-state concept is changing," said Gutierrez, 46, who came to Chicago in 1986 and led one of the Midwest's largest federations of hometown associations. "You don't have to say, `I am Mexican,' or, `I am American.' You can be a good Mexican citizen and a good American citizen and not have that be a conflict of interest. Sovereignty is flexible." That concept worries some U.S. officials and scholars who see the dual loyalty as undermining the assimilation of Mexican immigrants. Irish, German and Polish immigrants eventually melded into Chicago's landscape, their ties to their native soil largely sentimental. But Mexican immigrants today are linked to their homeland like no group before, scholars say, connected by NAFTA, satellite TV, the Internet, cell phones and cheap non-stop flights. In Mexico, their power stems from the nearly $25 billion these immigrants send home every year, the country's second-highest source of income behind oil. Their political influence surfaces in places like Teloloapan, far up in the cactus-filled hills of the state of Guerrero, where a Chicago restaurateur helped build new roads and business. Grateful townspeople elected him mayor in a landslide. In the U.S., immigrants' power is driven by numbers and a growing deftness at the levers of this country's political machinery. That recently manifested itself in a fledgling political action committee called Mexicans for Political Progress, which raised $23,000 for Blagojevich's re-election and rallied volunteers to walk precincts during November's election. An unfolding movement Fabian Morales, a soft-spoken Realtor with a well-clipped mustache, stands at the center of the unfolding movement. He handled logistics for three massive immigration marches in Chicago last year -- including a four-day walk to suburban Batavia -- and co-founded Mexicans for Political Progress. After coming to Chicago in 1970, Morales helped launch one of the city's then-few hometown clubs, devoted to his tiny native village of Xonacatla, Guerrero. Back then, Xonacatla was without roads, potable water or electricity. It was a slow journey from other towns by foot or horseback, Morales said. The club members in Chicago resolved to change that. Collecting $50 to $100 at a time, Morales and others raised enough through barbecues and door-to-door soliciting to replace a house used for worship services with a towering marble church that rises from the green hillside. Morales has since helped develop CONFEMEX, an umbrella organization for most of the hometown clubs in the Midwest. Among other things, the group is a central voice in economic development in Mexico, representing an estimated $340 million in projects generated by U.S.-based hometown associations in the last five years, according to Mexican federal officials. "We want to focus on creating more jobs there so they don't have to think about emigrating," Morales said. The rising activity of hometown associations caught the eye of the Mexican government, which eventually created a "3-for-1" matching project, where federal, state and local governments split the cost of a new bridge or computer center with the U.S.-based groups. Those projects have given Mexican immigrants "a great moral authority" in their homeland, as well as political cachet, said Carlos Gonzalez, executive director of the Institute for Mexicans in the Exterior, or IME, a Mexican federal government agency that fosters stronger ties with expatriates. "During the 1970s, [Mexicans] called the people who left Mexico and acclimated to the U.S. 'pocho,' which, if you look in the dictionary, means 'spoiled fruit,' " Gonzalez said. "The change we've seen in the public perception of Mexicans in the exterior has been 180 degrees." In 2006, citizens abroad were allowed to vote in Mexican presidential elections for the first time. Leaders are also pushing for changes that would allow expatriates to vote in local elections and even hold elective offices while residing abroad. Recently, Gutierrez and others persuaded Michoacan to become the first state in Mexico to extend voting rights to expatriates. Their rationale: Almost half of those born in Michoacan, Zacatecas and several other Mexican states now live in the U.S. Timoteo "Alex" Manjarrez, 44, is among a small but growing number of Mexican immigrants making a bolder claim in their motherland. Arriving from his native town of Teloloapan, Guerrero, in 1980, Manjarrez spent 19 years in Chicago. The stocky, boyish-looking immigrant worked for years as a dishwasher at the Columbia Yacht Club and, eventually, became owner of three Mexican restaurants in the city. Fulfilling a desire shared by many immigrants, Manjarrez moved back to his native town in 1999 with enough money for his family to live comfortably. But the place he had longed for all those years was still frustratingly poor, despite the investments Manjarrez's hometown club made in new roads and other improvements. Manjarrez, who holds both Mexican and U.S. citizenship, settled in and quickly built a new health club and a hacienda-style restaurant named La Condesa, after the three he still owns in Chicago. In 2004, he ran for mayor of Teloloapan. With long-distance backing from his hometown club friends in Chicago, who sent money and telephoned friends and local officials on his behalf, Manjarrez won handily. 'The city that works' Since taking office, the man who sees Mayor Richard M. Daley as a political role model has pushed to remake Teloloapan into a Mexican version of "the city that works." The effort includes newly paved streets, a recreation center that replaces a local swamp known as "black waters," and a towering hotel being built privately by Manjarrez's family. Next to a new medical clinic, a donated Chicago ambulance sits in the parking lot. Its emblem has been painted over, but it serves as a reminder of the continued links Manjarrez has to his former city, where he maintains a home near Midway Airport, votes in U.S. elections and checks in on his businesses. Aurelio Santamaria Bahena, mayor of a town near Manjarrez's called Tlapehuala, labeled such changes "a blessing" for an area of Mexico dominated by crumbling lean-to houses and children in bare feet pulling bone-thin donkeys. But, as with other parts of the country where the immigrant handprint is deepening, the introduction of U.S.-style governance has also bred resentment. Local leaders of Manjarrez's own Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) are trying to drum him out of office, arguing he is too brash and condescending. The mayor counters the fight is about his efforts to take away "a plate of corruption that they've been able to eat from for years." The conflict was an uncomfortable backdrop during a recent PRD strategy meeting at a restaurant in Chilpancingo, Guerrero's capital. Headlines that morning featured a march against Manjarrez, orchestrated by his opponents. "People see you as an outsider," a worried Santamaria cautioned Manjarrez. "People don't think you see things as they are here." Manjarrez, wearing a black "La Condesa" windbreaker, patted his friend on the back and smiled. He had a media plan, one that might have made Daley proud. "We'll publish photos of the streets of Teloloapan before and after I came into office," Manjarrez said. "And, we'll ask the people: `Which would you prefer?' " That same week, Mexican immigrants from the U.S. and Canada met in Mexico City, as members of an advisory council created by the Mexican government. With a brash American style, they soon escalated their advice to demands, the members' voices echoing through the meeting hall. Morales, the Chicago Realtor, and about 100 other council members pushed Mexico to lobby the U.S. harder on immigration reform. They chastised their hosts for not creating more jobs. Buttonholing federal legislators in hallways, they reminded elected officials how much their districts relied on money sent from the U.S. They want 'results now' Gregorio Luke, a blond member of the council from Los Angeles partial to designer suits, observed that this kind of behavior wouldn't exist in a purely Mexican forum, where deference toward authority guides nearly all dialogue. "These people come here speaking Spanish, but they're negotiating as Americans," said Luke, a museum director who once oversaw cultural affairs at the Los Angeles Mexican Consulate. "They want to see results now." The meeting of the advisory council also illustrated the provocative overlap of Mexican and American political action. In addition to all-day strategy sessions on how to improve Mexico, council members brainstormed over late-night drinks on next moves in the fight for U.S. immigration reform. Many members had used their existing e-mail network to coordinate simultaneous demonstrations in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities. Though not active participants in the U.S. immigrant movement, Mexican officials urged their compatriots to keep on fighting. "Let there be no barriers or walls between Mexicans here on the inside and the outside," former Mexican President Vicente Fox told the group, referring to a 2006 U.S. law that allows for a 700-mile fence to be built at the border. The audience stood and cheered. The idea that the Mexican government might be helping its nationals shape U.S. politics has raised red flags, both in the halls of academia and in the more volatile world of talk radio and the Internet. Robert Leiken, director of the immigration and national security program at the right-leaning Nixon Center in Washington, argued that binational activism among Mexican immigrants is bad for both countries. In the U.S., the meetings in Spanish and the often-passionate interest in Mexico's future hinder assimilation, he said. In Mexico, the relationship to hometown associations fosters an unhealthy economic dependence on U.S. remittances. "If I went out to Pilsen and spent some time with people from a hometown association, I'd think these are really cool people," Leiken said. But, "Standing back and looking at this from a social policy standpoint, I see some real problems." James McCann, a Purdue University political science professor, found that immigrants interested in Mexican affairs were more likely to participate in U.S. politics. He helped interview about 1,100 Mexican immigrants and found that hometown clubs promoted activism. "The conventional wisdom is that any transnational engagement is going to suck the oxygen out of your civic life in the States," McCann said. "But it seems that if you open a new avenue of expression in Mexico, that new avenue might pay some other dividends in the U.S." Some of those dividends went directly to the Blagojevich campaign last fall, when the governor found himself being serenaded by a trumpet-playing mariachi band inside the Hacienda Tecalitlan restaurant on the Near Northwest Side. Near a trickling courtyard fountain, Morales praised the governor in Spanish at the kickoff dinner for the Mexicans for Political Progress PAC. While Morales once raised money for his hometown with $1 tamales, the price here was as much as $500 a plate. "Let us demonstrate our political power by voting in the election, by voting for our friends interested in the prosperity of Mexicans. Friends like Gov. Rod Blagojevich!" Morales told the crowd. Blagojevich, who speaks a hint of Spanish, took the microphone and shouted: "Viva Chivas!" a reference to a popular Mexican soccer team. When the laughter and applause subsided, he switched to English and added: "By organizing, you are empowering a community. Your voice will be heard." The mood is darker in northwest suburban Carpentersville, where a growing Mexican community has rallied in large numbers in the face of a local backlash against undocumented immigrants. Last fall, about 3,000 Mexican immigrants and their supporters turned up outside Carpentersville's City Hall in an unexpected show of opposition to a proposed ordinance that would penalize landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. The crowd was so riled a vote on the ordinance was postponed and has yet to be taken. The quick response came largely due to the hometown association representing the village of La Purisima, Michoacan, local activists said. The club turned to its telephone list of 400 families, said Salvador Balleno, the group's president. The turnout was a victory, but it has not deterred Carpentersville trustees from other proposals that would allow local police to trigger deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants and make English the village's official language. And as Balleno has struggled to register voters and rally volunteers for this month's village elections, even sympathetic politicians have seemed hesitant to link themselves too closely with the hometown association. Balleno now fears the village's hard-liners have the upper hand, intimidating some of the immigrants who protested last fall. "The [club] members know that if these people stay [in office] it is going to affect their kids," Balleno said, sounding anxious that an opportunity was slipping through his fingers. Jose Artemio Arreola, a key organizer of next month's march in Chicago, has been actively monitoring the battle in Carpentersville. He sees the activity there as part of a plan to create a political empire for Mexican immigrants, one linking hometown associations in Chicago and other cities to labor unions and Mexico's congress. His strategy includes moving back to his native state of Michoacan to run for congress there, something Arreola never imagined doing when he left a town overrun by poverty and ruled by local drug kingpins. He got his start in Chicago working in a plastics factory. Frustrated by the union representation there, he ran for shop steward and won. Unable to speak English, he relied on his bilingual co-workers to help him negotiate union contracts. He has since become a school janitor in Oak Park. The position pays little, but it has allowed Arreola to climb the ranks of the Service Employees International Union, where he has become key in that union's national efforts to tap further into the country's exploding Mexican immigrant workforce. All the while, Arreola has used the sharp elbows and old-school union tactics acquired in Chicago to become a power broker in his hometown of Acuitzio del Canje. He started in 2004 when the local mayor refused to back projects proposed by his hometown association. Arreola, a burly backslapper partial to gold neck chains, recalled thinking: "I need to take them out." He recruited a teacher to run for mayor in the Mexican town. Arreola then brought back a town phone book and, with others in Chicago, called voters one by one, promising a stream of U.S. investment if his candidate won. The incumbent opted for traditional rallies and car tours through town with a bullhorn. More than two years later, sitting in a Pilsen restaurant, Arreola opened a laptop computer and showed off the fruits of what proved to be an easy victory. Pictures of a new retirement home popped onto the screen, one featuring a grinning Arreola at a groundbreaking ceremony. Another showed a new computer lab with 40 computers for local schoolchildren, an investment in the future of Acuitzio del Canje. The town's name comes from an 1865 decision to make it the site for a "canje," or exchange of prisoners between warring Mexican and French troops. Sitting deep in the dusty mountains of Michoacan, it was neutral ground back then, Arreola explained, territory that didn't fully belong to either country but, in some ways, belonged to both. ---------- aolivo@tribune.com oavila@tribune.com - - - IN THE WEB EDITION Jose Artemio Arreola is one of several Mexican hometown association leaders in Chicago with multiple connections in Mexico and the U.S. From helping organize last year's massive immigration marches to slating political candidates in his home state, he wields influence on both sides of the border. To learn more about Arreola, watch videos and see photo galleries, go to chicagotribune.com/mexicansinchicago. Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

Is this why the libs hate BUSH? President Bush's Accomplishments Spotted at Rightnation.us and GOPUSA.com reprinted here for your pleasure. I encourage people who support Bush to learn how effective our President has been, and liberals ought to browse this too. Just remember, the liberal media can't cover up the truth of his accomplishments. The Bush Administration 2001-2004 Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs. Budget, Taxes & Economy 1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. 2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. 3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. 5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. 6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. 7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. 8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. 9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. 10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. 11. Signed trade promotion authority. 12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. 13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. 14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. 15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. 16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. 17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. 18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. 19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year. Character & Conduct as President 1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Education & Employment Training 1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. 2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. 3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) 4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. 5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance. 6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. 7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. 8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers. Environment & Energy 1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. 2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. 3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. 6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. 8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Defense & Foreign Policy 1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. 2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured. 3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror. 4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed. 5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network. 6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century. 7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. 8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency. 9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. 10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year. 11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia. 12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. 13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. 14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs. 15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry. 16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006. 17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy. 18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments. 19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year. 20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports. 21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed. Globalization & Internationalism 1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). 2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).* 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. 5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Government Reform 1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises. 2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs. 3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.* 4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers. 5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals. Health 1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free. 2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. 3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes: A 10-year privatization option. Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine. More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors. New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford. Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration 1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. 2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004. 3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield). 4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders. 5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. 6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. 7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones. 8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested. 9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies. 10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability. 11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization. 12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens. 13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications. 14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack. Judiciary & Tort Reform 1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. 2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA. 3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary. 4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims. Politics 1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. 2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes. Second Amendment 1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right. 2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. 3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. 4. *See Globalization & Internationalism. Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism 1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself." 2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world. 3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. 4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved. 5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible. 6. Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. 7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states. 8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa. 9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles: Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law ________________________________________ TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror KEYWORDS: bushlegacy; bushrecord; georgewbush; gwb2004 ________________________________________ 1 posted on 03/12/2004 4:23:27 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ] ________________________________________ To: Cincinatus' Wife Bush is our President. He fixed our country. He brought back family values. He made us strong in the face of danger. He is looing out for my childrens education. He has reduced my income tax. That's why he gets my vote. 2 posted on 03/12/2004 4:43:46 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (60 Senate seats changes the world!! Bury Kerry in 04!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] ________________________________________ To: Cincinatus' Wife someone one point to the Medicare section and the savings accounts, someone scream at the conservatives who cry about drugs and point out $28,000 for ulcer surgery vs $500 for medicine; Medical Savings Accounts as a way to have larger deductibles and more patient responsibility. THESE ARE CONSERVATIVE PROGRAMS!! Newt was all over TV praising this program one week after they passed it but RUSH who is a headline reader has gotten it wrong and cost Bush 10 points in the polls. 3 posted on 03/12/2004 4:53:54 AM PST by q_an_a [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] ________________________________________ To: Cincinatus' Wife Bookmark for future reference 4 posted on 03/12/2004 5:05:46 AM PST by Semper Vigilantis (1 democrat + 1 democrat = 5 opinions, 6 tax increases, 2 more welfare programs & 0 solutions.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] ________________________________________ To: Cincinatus' Wife wide open borders that allow narco terrorists al qaeda and chi coms open easy access to CONUS? 5 posted on 03/12/2004 5:26:59 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] ________________________________________ To: Cincinatus' Wife Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs. Budget, Taxes & Economy 1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. 2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. 3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. 5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. 6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. 7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. 8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. 9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. 10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. 11. Signed trade promotion authority. 12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. 13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. 14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. 15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. 16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. 17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. 18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. 19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year. Character & Conduct as President 1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Education & Employment Training 1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. 2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. 3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) 4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. 5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance. 6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. 7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. 8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers. Environment & Energy 1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. 2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. 3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. 6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. 8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Defense & Foreign Policy 1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. 2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured. 3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror. 4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed. 5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network. 6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century. 7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. 8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency. 9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. 10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year. 11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia. 12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. 13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. 14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs. 15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry. 16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006. 17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy. 18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments. 19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year. 20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports. 21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed. Globalization & Internationalism 1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). 2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty). 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. 5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Government Reform 1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises. 2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs. 3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security. 4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers. 5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals. Health< 1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free. 2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. 3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes: A 10-year privatization option. Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine. More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors. New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford. Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration 1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. 2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004. 3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield). 4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders. 5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. 6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. 7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones. 8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested. 9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies. 10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability. 11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization. 12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens. 13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications. 14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack. Judiciary & Tort Reform 1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. 2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA. 3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary. 4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims. Politics 1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. 2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes. Second Amendment 1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right. 2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. 3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. 4. *See Globalization & Internationalism. Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism 1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself." 2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world. 3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. 4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved. 5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible. 6.Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. 7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states. 8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa. 9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles: Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law

those question for who is smart in US history.? that's school home work, and try to give right answer, thank you. 14. Which leader founded a vocational training institution in the late 1800s to improve economic opportunities for African Americans? 1.George Washington Carver 2.Frederick Douglass 3.W. E. B. Du Bois 4.Booker T. Washington 15. Following the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to 1.provide free farmland for African Americans 2.guarantee equal civil rights for African Americans 3.restrict the rights of formerly enslaved persons 4.support the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau 16. In the ten years following the Civil War, a large numbers of former slaves earned a living by becoming 1.conductors on the Underground Railroad 2.workers in Northern factories 3.sharecroppers on Southern farms 4.gold miners in California 17. The passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 was primarily an attempt by the United States government to 1.limit the power of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 2.return eastern land to Native American Indian tribes 3.encourage Native American Indians to give up their traditional cultures 4.hire Native American Indians as military scouts 18. The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had a major impact on the lives of African Americans because it ruled that 1.segregation was illegal in educational institutions 2.voting was a right guaranteed by the Constitution 3.separate but equal public facilities were legal 4.military occupation of the South was unconstitutional 19. What effect did the system of sharecropping have on the South after the Civil War? 1.It kept formerly enslaved persons economically dependent. 2.It brought investment capital to the South. 3.It encouraged Northerners to migrate south. 4.It provided for a fairer distribution of farm profits. 20. In the 1800s, the Great Plains region of the United States was characterized primarily by 1.exceptionally high amounts of annual rainfall 2.heavily wooded forests covering most of the area 3.an extensive system of navigable rivers 4.vast expanses of native grasses 21. A goal of the Granger and Populist movements was to 1.expand rights for African Americans 2.help western farmers fight unjust economic practices 3.provide support for the banking industry 4.enable big business to expand without government interference 22. During the late 1800s, what was the main reason why labor unions had difficulty achieving gains for workers? 1.Communists had taken control of the major unions. 2.The government supported business efforts to limit the powers of unions. 3.Most unions had been organized by big business. 4.Most workers were satisfied with working conditions. 23. In the late 1800s, the Granger movement tried to improve conditions for farmers by 1.lowering the rate of inflation 2.strengthening the gold standard 3.forcing railroads to lower their rates 4.making labor unions stronger 24. The slogan "Eight hours for work, eight hours for sleep, eight hours for what we will" was used in the late 1800s to promote a major goal of 1.farmers 2.politicians 3.industrialists 4.organized labor 25. The Homestead Act of 1862 helped the development of the West by 1.providing free land to settlers 2.granting land for construction of transcontinental railroads 3.allowing slavery to spread to the territories 4.placing Native American Indians on reservations 26. Between 1880 and 1900, most immigrants coming to the United States settled in the cities along the east coast because 1.many factory jobs were available in the East 2.little farmland remained to be settled in the Midwest 3.most immigrants came from the cities of Europe 4.city laws afforded special rights and protections for immigrants 27. The Populist movement was most interested in improving conditions for 1.farmers 2.business leaders 3.African Americans 4.Native American Indians 28. During the late 1800s, industrialization in the United States led to 1.the growth of the middle class 2.an overall decline in labor union membership 3.the creation of affirmative action programs 4.a decrease in the use of natural resources 29. In the 19th century, protective tariffs, subsidies for railroads, and open immigration showed that the federal government followed a policy of 1.support for economic development 2.noninterference in the free-market system 3.regulation of unfair business practices 4.support for organized labor 30. Why did the United States follow a policy of open immigration during much of the 1800s? 1.Many United States citizens wanted to live abroad. 2.The United States had a shortage of labor. 3.Prosperous conditions in Europe resulted in fewer immigrants coming to the United States. 4.Immigrants provided United States industry with investment capital. 31. During the late 19th century, which p

Are the Yaqui-Indigenous or Native-American nation part of the USA or part of Mexico ? The Yaquis are a tribe of 30,000 people living in Sonora (northern Mexico) and Arizona (USA). At the turn of the century, thousands of them migrated to Arizona for political reasons. Their language belong to the ‘Cahitan’ branch of the Uto-Aztecan group. Although we know relatively little about the archaeology of the area, the Yaquis and their ancestors must have practiced irrigation farming for centuries. Their staple crops were corn, beans, and squash; they also hunted and fished. Traditionally they lived on the banks of the Rio Yaqui in small and dispersed settlements, the so-called rancherías. Their country was part of 'la gran Chichimeca', the fringe of Meso-America. Because of their geographical isolation, the Yaquis were never conquered by the Toltecs or Aztecs. They probably had a fixed territory with well-defined borders when the Conquistadores arrived. In 1533, the tribe had its first confrontation with the Spaniards when Diego de Guzmán and his soldiers were defeated by a united force of Yaqui warriors. More than seventy years later, in 1609, another Spanish party lost its battle with the Indians. Yet, the Yaqui were interested in Spanish material culture and proved to be eager converts to Christianity. They developed a new religion which contained both native and Christian elements. Jesuits established missions in the Yaqui country and the majority of the Indians became converts. The Jesuit presence had a profound influence on Yaqui culture and social organization. At the request of the missionaries, the Yaquis abandoned their widely dispersed encampments and settled in eight new towns which soon became part of Yaqui sacred geography: Potam, Vicam, Torim, Bacum, Cocorit, Huirivis, Belem, and Rahum. Because of their northern location and military strength, the Yaquis were never fully subdued by the Spanish. Thus, they were largely spared the more brutal forms of Spanish exploitation such as the 'repartimiento de indios'. The Yaquis were able to pick and choose from Spanish culture for more than a century while their economy flourished. But in the eighteenth century, the colonial regime became more oppressive and the Indians were also faced with a growing influx of white settlers. In 1740 and 1742, two uprisings against the Spaniards marked the end of a long, peaceful era. Weary of European domination, the Yaquis asserted their wish to be recognized as an independent group and they continued to do so well into the twentieth century. Mexico became an independent republic in 1821, and this event triggered nationalist inspirations among the Indians of the north. However, the attempts to create a pan-Indian federation in Sonora under the leadership of Juan Banderas were not received well by the new Mexican government. Banderas, a Yaqui, was finally defeated in 1832. The military confrontations continued, sometimes resulting in bloody massacres such as the one in Bacum. In 1868, the Mexican army set fire to a church in which hundreds of Yaquis had been locked up for the night. More than 150 prisoners were burned alive. In 1872, Mexico became a dictatorship under Porfirio Díaz. Shortly after, a new Yaqui leader emerged who tried to unite the eight river towns by establishing a short-lived republic in the Yaqui Valley. His name was José María Leyva or Cajeme in Yaqui, 'he-who-does-not-drink'. Díaz accused the Yaquis of separatism, even though their little nation was older than the Republic of Mexico. War seemed to be inevitable and 4,000 Yaquis prepared for it by building a fortified village in the heartland of their country. The siege of this fort, El Añil, ended in a defeat for Cajeme in 1886. One year later, he was captured and executed in Guaymas. The Yaqui guerrilleros continued their resistance under a new leader, Juan Maldonado or Tetabiate ('Rolling Stone'). The Bacatete Mountains became a stronghold for the guerrilla faction, which had now become a minority. The Yaqui river towns were almost totally deserted as Yaqui dispersed throughout the rest of Sonora to become farm laborers, miners, or fishermen. The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by a clampdown on Yaquis resistance in Sonora. In January 1900, almost 1,000 Indians were killed in a massacre at Mazocoba, a rocky plateau in the Bacatete Mountains. It was a portent of even more serious developments. Díaz encouraged foreign investments and modernization of Mexican society by urging white colonists from Europe and the U.S. to settle in the sparsely settled northern states. At the same time, a worldwide demand for products such as sugar, sisal hemp and tobacco stimulated the establishment of large haciendas in the south which came to depend on bonded or 'contract' labor. There is a clear connection between these developments and the systematic persecution of the Yaqui which began around 1903. Because most Yaquis were not inclined to give up their fertile river lands, Díaz and his political allies wanted to remove them from Sonora. Outright extermination was considered, but finally the government opted for deportation of all Yaqui 'rebels' to the plantations of Yucatán and Oaxaca. The governor of Sonora, Rafael Izábal, organized regular manhunts throughout the state which culminated in a total war against the tribe in 1904-1909. Between 8,000 and 15,000 Yaqui prisoners of war were rounded up and sold as virtual slaves. Up to 60% of these people perished within the first year of their arrival because of the climate and inhumane working conditions. Thousands of Indians went into hiding, sometimes aided by their Sonoran employers who did not agree with Díaz's 'ethnic cleansing' policy. Others fled to Arizona and established new settlements there, especially near the cities of Tucson and Phoenix. Their cheap labor was in great demand among cotton growers and railroad companies. With the onset of the Mexican revolution in 1911, de facto slavery in Mexico came to an end and Porfirio Díaz was forced to leave the country. Francisco Madero, the first new president, reportedly told a group of Yaqui survivors that they would receive some compensation for their losses and that their lands would be restored to them. During the course of the war, Yaquis joined the armies of all major factions. From all over the state, refugees returned to the Yaqui valley to resettle it while the encroachment by mestizos and whites continued. After the revolution, Madero's promises to the Indians were quickly forgotten. Former generals such as Alvaro Obregón established estates of their own and competed with the Yaquis for land and resources in Sonora. This led to renewed warfare against the Indians in 1916-1917. The last military campaign, which started in 1926, was also the most destructive one. Thousands of Yaqui non-combatants fled to the Bacatete mountains and the army used bombs to ferret them out of their hiding places. In 1927, the Yaquis were finally defeated and the Mexican government established army posts in all their towns. The military occupation of the Yaqui valley would not be fully lifted until the early 1970s. The reform policy of Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940) brought some improvements for the Yaquis, whose ancestral lands were party turned into a reservation (zona indígena) by presidential decree. For the first time in Mexican history, the federal government agreed to the establishment of a separate territory for its native inhabitants. However, the economic situation in the towns worsened because most Yaquis lacked the resources to farm their own land. In the early fifties, several large dams were constructed in Sonora which altered the course of the Rio Yaqui and other rivers in the vicinity. As a result, the Indians had to buy all the water they needed and this eroded their self-sufficiency even further. In the 1960s and 1970s, clashes with landless mestizo peasants took on alarming proportions as the government tried to strengthen its position in the communities. The loss of culture has been extensive, yet the Yaqui nation still exists as a political entity in Sonora today. This is also true for Arizona. Most Yaquis who crossed the border during the turmoils of the Díaz era chose to stay there permanently. Major settlements like Pascua Village (near Tucson) and Guadalupe (near Phoenix) have sustained a steadily growing population of Indians since the early 1900s. Unemployment became a major problem in most communities after the mechanization of the cotton industry in the 1960s, and the situation is still problematic for many Yaquis. In 1978, Pascuans voted to organize under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and they became a federally organized tribe. Today, there are about 6,000 Yaquis living in the United States. Source: http://www.lasculturas.com/aa/vs_EdithYaqui.htm :)

Will September be the collapse of the US real economy? According to LEAP/E2020, the end of the third quarter of 2008 will be marked by a new tipping point in the unfolding of the global systemic crisis. At that time indeed, the cumulated impact of the various sequences of the crisis (see table below) will reach its maximum strength and affect decisively the very heart of the systems concerned, on the frontline of which the United States, epicentre of the current crisis. In the United States, this new tipping point will translate into a collapse of the real economy, final socio-economic stage of the serial bursting of the housing and financial bubbles [1] and of the pursuance of the US dollar fall. The collapse of US real economy means the virtual freeze of the American economic machinery: private and public bankruptcies in large numbers, companies and public services closing down massively [2],... A revealing harbinger: From March 2008 onward, the US government will cease to publish its economic indicators due to budget restrictions [3]. Those who read the GEAB N°2 (02/2006), and included Alert, certainly keep in mind our anticipation which connected the upcoming fall of the US dollar with the US Fed’s decision to cease publishing the M3 indicator. This new decision is another clear sign that US leaders are now anticipating a very bleak economic outlook for their country. Time perspective of the seven sequences of the impact phase of the global systemic crisis as anticipated since mid-2007 - Source LEAP/E2020, GEAB N°18 (10/2007) In this 22nd issue of the GEAB, LEAP/E2020’s experts try in particular to anticipate very specifically what will come out of the collapse of the US real economy for the United States themselves and for the other regions of the world. Meanwhile our team presents five sets of strategic and operational recommendations helping to protect oneself from the upcoming deterioration of the global systemic crisis. On the occasion of the second anniversary of the publication of our famous “Global systemic crisis Alert” which toured the world in February 2006 [4], LEAP/E2020 wishes to remind that we are now resolutely stepping into an era with no historical precedent. Our researchers insisted on that many times in the last two years: any comparison with the previous crises of our modern economy would be fallacious. It is neither a “remake” of the 1929 crisis nor a repetition of the 1970s oil crises or 1987 stock market crisis. It is truly a global systemic crisis, that is to say a crisis affecting the entire planet and questioning the very foundations of the international system upon which the world was organised in the last decades. According to LEAP/E2020, it is also instructive to observe that, two years after the release of this « Alert » which at the time generated both the interest of millions of readers worldwide and the condescending irony of most « experts » and « managers » of the economic and financial spheres, everyone is now convinced that a crisis is truly happening, that it is really global, and for most people already that it could indeed be systemic. However, it is always a repeated astonishment for our team to see the degree of incapacity of these same experts and managers in understanding the specific nature of the phenomenon currently unfolding. According to them, this crisis would only be a normal crisis but bigger. As a matter of fact that is the way the financial media reflect the dominant interpretations of the ongoing crisis. According to our team, this approach is not only intellectually lazy [5], it is also morally guilty, because it has for a main consequence to prevent their readers (whether they are simple citizens, private investors or public or private organisation managers) from preparing for the upcoming shocks [6]. For this reason, in opposition to all what can be read in the mainstream media always eager to conceal the truth and serve the interests of those who rule them, LEAP/E2020 wishes to remind that it is first and foremost in the United States that the systemic crisis is taking an unprecedented shape (the « Very Great US Depression » as our team decided to call it in January 2007 [7]) because it is around this country, and this country alone, that the world got progressively organised after the second World War. The various issues of the GEAB extensively described this situation. In short, let’s be clear about the fact that neither Europe nor Asia have a negative saving rate, a full-scale housing crisis throwing millions of citizens out of their homes, a free-falling currency, abysmal public and trade deficits, an economic recession and, on top of all this, a number of costly wars to finance. Neither Asia nor Europe (or more precisely ‘nor the Eurozone’) will suffer the roughest, the most sustainable and the most negative impact of the ongoing crisis; but the United States will, as well as all the countries/economies strongly linked to the US (what our experts have decided to call “the American risk”) [8]. A “decoupling” is indeed taking place between the US economy and the other large regions of the world. But “decoupling” does not mean “independence” and it is clear that, as anticipated by LEAP/E2020 for many months, Asia and Europe will be affected by the crisis. But « decoupling » entails that the evolution of the US economy and of the other large regions of the world are no longer synchronised, that Asia and Europe are now moving along courses no longer determined by the US economy. The global systemic crisis is in fact the beginning of an economic « decoupling » between the US and the rest of the world, knowing that the non « decoupled » economies will be dragged down the US negative spiral. US Self-Employment in a Steep Downturn - Source Bureau of Labor Statistics / Merril Lynch (shaded region represents period of US recession) The cases of the housing (2006) and financial (2007) bubble-bursting are eloquent. Indeed, the large majority of operators (non-specialised in the concerned sector) discovered that « the party was over » a long time after the trend had reversed. During the entire reversal period (which usually lasts between 6 to 12 months at most), dominant stances kept repeating them that nothing was changing and that emerging worries had no reason to be; and later, that the problems would remain confined to the sector concerned and to the US only. All those who, in the US and elsewhere, listened to these arguments are bitterly regretful now that they are stuck with unmarketable houses (or about to be foreclosed) or now that they see the value of their assets crumble day after day [9]. Concerning stock markets, our team has anticipated since October 2007 that international stocks would plummet by 20 to 60 percent according to the region in the course of the year 2008. Today, we must re-evaluate our anticipations as we estimate that losses will be even greater than that. Indeed, on the one hand, stock markets have already lost between 10 and 20 percent since the beginning of the year [10], and, on the other hand, the collapse of the real economy in the US by the end of Summer 2008 will drag down all stock markets. According to LEAP/E2020, international stock markets will probably drop by 50 percent in average compared to 2007 (including in the emerging countries) [11]. This sort of re-evaluation is typical of the work of anticipation carried by LEAP/E2020. Month after month we try to distinguish which trends are growing and which are relenting in order to improve the accuracy of our evaluations. We do not strive to “be right” [12], nor to “sell” or “promote” anything. We seek simply and without prejudice to describe in advance the consequences of the heavy trends at play in this 21st-century world, and to share with our readers what we think are the proper means to protect oneself from the most negative effects. In this 22nd issue of the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin, with the alert we sound about a collapse of US real economy from September 2008 onward, we are trying again to warn those concerned that this major event will generate many very severe socio-political troubles in the United States [13] whose economy is truly on a tumbling course [14], a situation extremely likely to entail very heavy consequences for the financial and monetary markets, and for the world’s economy. We have not yet reached the heart of the crisis. According to LEAP/E2020, we will be there in the second semester of 2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] A very instructive film was recently nominated at the Sundance Film Festival: I.O.U.S.A., directed by Patrick Creadon. As it follows the journey of David Walker, US Comptroller General (and therefore responsible for controlling federal public spending), during a series of conferences on the state of public expenditures throughout the country, this film shows the very direct impact of the current crisis on American citizens and the United States. The release of this film illustrates the fact that, in just a few months time, this crisis left the mere circles of experts and boardrooms of financial institutions to enter into the daily life of the US citizens. [2] In the past few days, the complete collapse of Municipal bonds (or « Munis ») illustrates the fact that the crisis is spreading to all sectors of the US society. This collapse will freeze all public investment projects scheduled by local authorities in the US. It is one of the first big victims of the implosion of « bonds insurers » announced by LEAP/E2020 in the GEAB N°19. It aloso demonstrates the fact that large banks are now incapable of playing their role of financers of the country’s economic activity. Sources: Financial Times, 02/13/2008 & Bloomberg, 02/14/2008 [3] Source: EconomicIndicators.Gov, Economics & Statistics Administration, US Department of Commerce [4] See GEAB N°2, 02/15/2006 [5] The first reason that may prevent those « experts » to conceive the « unconceivable », is not a matter of intelligence but a « commercial » problem. Indeed it would compel them to review most of their intellectual principles (their work hypotheses) and their business base (their « clients » would not appreciate to learn that they were on the wrong track all these years). [6] On this subject, it is worth noticing the very straightforward speech made by the head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, who recently warned his fellow citizens that the current crisis would downgrade significantly their living standards. Unfortunately, no US leader, including among the Democrats, is able to produce such a speech, knowing that their fellow citizens will be hit even harder than the British. Source: The Telegraph, 02/14/2008. [7] See GEAB N°11, 01/15/2007. [8] In this 22nd issue of the GEAB, the LEAP/E2020 team gives a set of recommendations helping investors to assess themselves the « American risk » of a country, sector or investment. [9] The same goes for all those who chose to listen to similar arguments telling them, along the years 2006 and 2007, that it was impossible for the EURUSD exchange rate to go above 1.30, then 1.40, and now 1.50… while waiting 1.70 at the end of the year 2008. [10] Only « dream merchants » can still imagine that stock markets could improve by the end of the year, while the crisis is speeding up. [11] It is worth reminding that in January 2008, in just a month, global stock markets saw USD 5,200 billion-worth go up in smoke. Source: China Daily News, 02/10/2008 [12] Even if our anticipations undeniably proved to be right in the past two years concerning the global systemic crisis. [13] See ‘Sequence 6 : 2nd quarter 2007 – 4th quarter 2009 : « Very Great Depression » in the US, social unrest and growing influence of the army on public management, GEAB N°18, 10/15/2007 [14] Predictions about the failure of dozens of US banks in the coming two years illustrate the scope of upcoming difficulties. Source: Reuters, 02/01/2008 © Copyright Europe 2020 - Contact Email : centre@europe2020.org - Site réalisé sous Spip

do you understand this economic plan? We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now – who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills. We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class and we need to do it now. Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners. It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S. We've already lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year, and some experts say that unemployment may rise to 8% by the end of next year. We can't wait until then to start creating new jobs. That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years. We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue. ...At a time when the ups and downs of the stock market have rarely been so unpredictable and dramatic, we also need to give families and retirees more flexibility and security when it comes to their retirement savings. ...Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without any fine or penalty throughout 2009. This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college. ...For those Americans in danger of losing their homes, today I'm also proposing a three-month moratorium on foreclosures. If you are a bank or lender that is getting money from the rescue plan that passed Congress, and your customers are making a good-faith effort to make their mortgage payments and re-negotiate their mortgages, you will not be able to foreclose on their home for three months. We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. ...It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means – from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying home they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save. Now, I know that in an age of declining wages and skyrocketing costs, for many folks this was not a choice but a necessity. People have been forced to turn to credit cards and home equity loans to keep up, just like our government has borrowed from China and other creditors to help pay its bills. But we now know how dangerous that can be. Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt. Our long-term future requires that we do what's necessary to scale down our deficits, grow wages and encourage personal savings again. It's a serious challenge. But we can do it if we act now, and if we act as one nation. We can bring a new era of responsibility and accountability to Wall Street and to Washington. We can put in place common-sense regulations to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. We can make investments in the technology and innovation that will restore prosperity and lead to new jobs and a new economy for the 21st century. We can restore a sense of fairness and balance that will give ever American a fair shot at the American dream. And above all, we can restore confidence – confidence in America, confidence in our economy, and confidence in ourselves. Read Barack's full remarks, as prepared for delivery... Obama's plan includes four new major ideas about job creation, relief to families, relief to homeowners and responding to the financial crisis: Job Creation: A New American Jobs Tax Credit. Obama is calling for a temporary tax credit for firms that create new jobs in the United States over the next two years. Relief to Families: Penalty-Free Withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009. Obama is calling for new legislation to allow families to withdraw 15% of their retirement savings – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without facing a tax-penalty this year (including retroactively) and next year. Relief

In the article “When Worlds Collide” the opinions of three thinkers,Thomas Friedman,john Ralston Saul and Je Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Of the 100 largest "economies" in the world, only 47 are nation states. The other 53 are multinational corporations. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest company in terms of sales, has annual revenues that exceed the gross domestic product (GDP) of all but 20 of the world's 220 nations. I gleaned these factoids from a fascinating book titled "Global, Inc.," which the authors and sponsors describe as "An Atlas of the Multinational Corporation." The book, authored by Medard Gabel and Henry Bruner and published in the U.S. last year by The New Press, is described as part of an effort "to conceptualize and to see globalization in a historical perspective." It achieves that objective admirably by displaying in charts and graphs the explosive growth in the number and geographical diversity of multinational companies (MNCs) in the last 30-some years. The global population of MNCs went above 63,000 in 2000, exceeding by nearly ninefold the 7,258 of 1969. Nothing comparable had ever happened before. In the 100 years preceding 1969, the world's population of MNCs barely tripled. The 1,000 largest today account for 80% of the world's industrial production, according to the "atlas." So that's what all those critics of "globalization" have been fussing about! The riots at World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund gatherings over the last four years have really been just an extension of the long-running war by the international Left against private capitalism. The efforts to disrupt commerce have been so strident, and at times violent, because the explosion of private MNCs makes it clear that the Left has lost the war. The poorest of the world's people should give thanks for that. One of the first pitched battles took place in Seattle in late 1999, when a combination of labor union and leftist demonstrators broke up a WTO attempt to further the Doha round of trade liberalization talks. For that reason, and because the Naderite anti-corporation movement had its origins in the U.S., it was widely assumed that U.S. MNCs were the main targets of the anti-globalization movement. But if that is the case, the protectors are missing something important. Whereas in 1962, almost 60% of the largest corporations in the world were U.S.-based, American MNCs are no longer dominant. Of the 500 largest, only 185 are headquartered in the U.S. The European Union has 126 and Japan 108. But more interestingly, MNCs that have sprouted in developing countries are reaching out for a share of world business. Mexico's Cemex, for example, is now one of the three largest cement companies in the world. Globalization has brought a corresponding rise in direct investment, much of it flowing out of developed states and into the underdeveloped world, where production costs are cheaper and huge markets beckon as more people move up from poverty to higher living standards. The outflow of direct investments from nations with available capital into factories, stores and other infrastructure abroad has soared in the last 30 years, to almost $6 trillion from $112 billion. Investments help create markets by putting money into the pockets of workers and suppliers. MNCs and their subsidiaries now employ 90 million people around the world, 20 million of them in developing countries. They "pay more than $1.5 trillion in wages, contribute 25% of the gross world product and pay more than $1.2 trillion in taxes to the governments of the world . . ." Taking a lead from China, India finally awakened to the benefits of welcoming foreign investment and is now growing at a rate exceeding 8%. The Indian middle class is expanding. It is of course argued that the "giant corporations" are getting too powerful. Tell that to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of one of Russia's largest companies, who now resides in a jail cell. His wealth and the size of his OAO Yukos were no match for the police power of the state, wielded by President Vladimir Putin. Or tell it to the officers of the likes of Enron Corp. or WorldCom, Inc., who have learned the hard way that states, not corporations, are still the sovereign powers. Multinationals are not democratic in the usual sense, but they have a powerful business interest in acquiring and retaining the good opinion of their stakeholders -- meaning employees, shareowners, suppliers and customers. They are after all trying to drum up business, so they are in a popularity contest every day of the week. Wal-Mart Stores and McDonald's Corp. have applied this lesson, first learned in the competitive markets of the U.S., successfully in their thousands of outlets around the globe. Wal-Mart, of course, has to fight complaints from U.S. protectionists about its heavy reliance on imported goods, but that hasn't stopped its growth. The relations between MNCs and nation states have improved as political leaders have come to see the merits of inviting in well- financed, well-managed organizations that employ workers, pay taxes and get things done. Corporations move fast in part because their managers have their eye on the bottom line. Globalization is nothing more, or less, than the current state of advancement of something that has been going on for centuries, since even before camels plodded across the silk road to bring finery to the Mideast and, ultimately, Europe from China. It was the driving force behind Europeans who set out from Europe in the 16th century to find better routes to Asia for the lucrative spice trade. Its exponential growth in the last 30 years can be attributed in part to the vast improvements in communications and transportation, the capital surpluses generated by U.S., European and Japanese manufacturers, more efficient global banking and the reduction of trade barriers. Skills for managing far-flung operations have improved. Product innovations have expanded the range of desirable goods. Is all this something to protest? Surely not, which is why all that yammering at trade conferences and the like is mainly just the noise of a dying political culture.

"When Worlds Collide"........................details given below? In the article “When Worlds Collide” the opinions of three thinkers, Thomas Friedman, John Ralston Saul and Jeffery Sachs, are reviewed. Briefly describe the (3) three different solutions to today’s global inequities offered by Friedman, Saul and Sachs. (Approximate length of answer: 3 Paragraphs) THREE THINKERS OFFER THREE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO TODAY'S GLOBAL INEQUITIES The Live 8 concerts, broadcast internationally to an estimated audience of three billion and dedicated to pressuring western political leaders to tackle poverty in Africa, dominated the headlines earlier this summer. For a while at least, the 10 shows, which relied on a global logistics team using advanced telecommunications technology, and on media outlet co-operation worldwide, appeared to strike a chord, and united citizens far and wide to support an undoubtedly important cause. But after the Pet Shop Boys took the stage in Moscow's Red Square, and after crowds swayed to Neil Young in Barrie, Ont., how much was there left to cheer about? Because, although it's easy to agree that ridding the world of poverty is a worthwhile goal, just how to achieve that goal is clearly a much thornier proposition. Against this backdrop, new books from three global thinkers, dedicated to understanding the world we live in and suggesting ways to create a more equitable planet, can be found on store shelves. Their recommendations, not surprisingly, are drastically different. While Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat: A Bnef History of the Twenty-first Century (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $38.50), suggests that integration is the key to global prosperity, John Ralston Saul argues nearly the opposite in The Collapse of Globalism (Viking Canada, $36), proclaiming the death of globalism as a good thing and reasserting the need for national power. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty (Penguin, $40) posits that if rich countries would just increase foreign aid budgets, abject poverty would be eliminated. None of these tomes makes for light summer reading, but the most compelling of the three is Friedman's. In The World is Flat, Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times, argues that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, geopolitical change and technological innovations like PCs, the Internet and workflow software have resulted in an explosion of creative cross-border businesses and an increasingly "flat" playing field for commercial actors worldwide. Friedman's tidy description of the 10 flattening forces lays the groundwork for a provocative analysis of how America (and, by extension, Canada) can thrive in a world led by companies like HealthScribe India, a Bangalore-based firm that relies on satellites and digitization to provide transcription services for doctors working in the United States. While Friedman seems thoroughly convinced that greater trade and economic integration grows the global pie, upping standards of living everywhere and reducing the chances of war, the challenge lies in reconciling the benefits of a streamlined global marketplace with the immediate chaos that factors like outsourcing can cause locally. In Friedman's eyes, the rise of countries like India and China represents the beginning of an era in which the only way westerners can compete is by turning themselves into "untouchables"-people whose jobs cannot be outsourced. Friedman doesn't suggest the transition to a globalized economy-or a globalized society, for that matter-is straightforward. He acknowledges the difficulties of bridging cultural, political and legal divides, and the fact that, at times, the new world order produces absurd results. case-in-point: in 2003, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., an Indian consulting firm, won a multimillion-dollar contract to upgrade the claims-processing system of the unemployment department of the state of Indiana. The deal caused an uproar because, while it saved Indiana taxpayers US$8.1 million, it also cost local jobs. A modern conundrum. But Friedman's deep-seated belief that the forces of globalization are both desirable and unstoppable, and that intertwined economies are the great leveller, is a constant. The book's one weakness stems from Friedman's American bias. Despite his admiration for the flat world, he's adamant the U.S. ought to "dominate the twenty-first century the way it dominated the twentieth." But if collaboration is the key, why should anyone dominate? Meanwhile, in The Collapse ofGlobalism, Saul suggests that the trade liberalization mantra has run its course. He doesn't want privatization, deregulation, tax cuts or shrinking governments; nor, according to him, do the scholars and policy-makers who once sang their praises. Apparently awakened to the reality that market reforms alone do not provide peace and prosperity, the governing orthodoxy, he argues, now embraces details like democratic transition and the rule of law. Saul's key frustration is with people and institutions that advise that, as long as the commercial ties between countries are solid, everything else will fall into place. He goes on at some length about the importance of good governance and proposes a heightened focus on public goods as the only way to ensure justice for all. Moreover, Saul disagrees with the sentiment that borders should take a back seat to commerce. He points to recently reborn nation-states like Ukraine, Bulgaria and Latvia, whose people are reluctant to give an ounce of sovereignty over to a global system, and predicts the re-emergence of powerful nation-states as critical to the maintenance of a fair and balanced world. While Friedman and Saul view the world through very different lenses, they hold in common a tendency to focus on the West and BRIG countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China). In Sachs's The End of Poverty, the emphasis is reversed. Here, the American economist, who is also the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, focuses on the poorest of the poor, laying out a bold, detailed plan for abolishing extreme global poverty by the year 202 5. Outlining the plight of the 1.1 billion people, most of them in Africa and Asia, who get by on, at most, one dollar a day, Sachs argues that if the wealthy world would pony up between US$135 billion and US$195 billion per year in foreign aid over the next 10 years, and continue giving for 10 years after that, abject poverty would be stamped out. He attributes entrenched poverty to geographical bad luck, poor infrastructure and poor health care, and dismisses corruption or culture as possible culprits. Sachs is a fan of free markets, but he argues that market forces alone are not enough to help, say, an isolated village in Kenya grow out of poverty. He suggests the key is investments in agricultural inputs, basic health, education, power, transportation, safe drinking water and telecommunications. Sachs's experience turning around stumbling economies is impressive. He's not shy about it, either-the first half of the book is an autobiography of sorts, detailing his accomplishments dictating monetary policy and fiscal restraint everywhere from Bolivia to China. Reading Sachs's carefully crafted plans, complete with diagrams and budgets, one wants to have faith in the theory-that if only our political leaders would fork over the cash, poverty could be eradicated. Yet it's hard to believe; the technocratic approach seems at odds with messy reality. Each author calls upon a different set of characters to prove his point. Friedman relies heavily on interviews with businessmen whose cross-border ventures are booming; Saul illustrates his perspective with historical examples and comments from politicians and World Bank types. Sachs, on the other hand, invokes personal anecdotes, academic studies, maps and photographs for impact. Ultimately, it doesn't seem like one book has nailed it. Instead, while addressing the common theme of global inequity, each volume shines a spotlight on a different corner of the complex global landscape. In this case, it's only by considering each approach that a full-colour portrait of our times is revealed, and the need to embrace a variety of strategies in order to set the best course exposed.

I need help with these world civilazation questions. Please help me.? 1. The economic weakening of Spain and Portugal in the eighteenth century was caused by A. increased competition for sea power. B. a decrease in the demand for spices. C. their expenditures on religious wars. D. the financial toll of the Seven Years' war. 2. The Ottoman army, even though it adopted western military technology, still lost to the Europeans in 1683 because the A. Europeans outnumbered them. B. Ottomans built their weapons too big. C. Europeans had larger artillery. D. Ottomans employed traditional battle methods. 3. As a result of the battle of Plassey, the British Company A. was allowed to collect state revenues. B. was prevented from collecting state revenues. C. expanded its markets. D. was allowed to trade in India's interior. 4. Which of the following were the first to pioneer the abolitionist movement? A. The American revolutionaries B. The British cabinet members C. William Pitt and Lord Dundas D. The Quakers and the Methodists 5. Alexander Selkirk was an important addition to Woodes Rogers's expedition because he was A. on friendly terms with the Peruvian government. B. an experienced sea captain. C. familiar with the route around the Cape. D. experienced in preventing mutinies aboard ship. 6. The Luddite movement of the early nineteenth century A. was opposed to mechanization and industrialism. B. advocated mechanization and industrialism. C. was opposed to British imperialism. D. advocated British imperialism. 7. As defined by the British East India Company, a "presidency" was a A. company leader's position. B. trading agreement. C. company base. D. coveted royal charter. 8. "Protoindustrialism" is another term for the _______ system. A. domestic B. guild C. factory D. free-trade 9. By the 1750s, employees of the British East India Company wanted to work in Bombay because A. the region was involved in a civil war. B. the region wasn't as economically strong as others. C. governmental trade restrictions made operations there difficult. D. it was the least populous region of India. 10. As a result of the Peace of Amiens, articulated in 1801, A. France struck a truce with its radical party members. B. Napoleon tried to restore slavery in the Caribbean. C. Napoleon garnered support for his governmental reform program. D. The French populace accepted monarchy as its official government. 11. It was dangerous for governments to depend upon the use of privateers because A. governments stood to lose their best naval officers. B. privateers often mistakenly attacked military, not merchant, vessels. C. the privateers might attack their parent countries. D. privateers often ignored the directions of their parent countries. 12. Woodes Rogers was chosen to head the expedition to the Pacific because of his A. experience with the Royal Navy. B. reputation for bravery. C. reputation for practicality. D. aggressive disposition. 13. The battle of Adyar River is important in India's history because A. a better-organized army defeated a larger army. B. the French were defeated and driven out of the region. C. a smaller army defeated a better-organized army. D. the Dutch were defeated and driven out of the region. 14. The Pluviose decree mandated the A. creation of a black army in the West Indian Islands. B. abolition of the monarchy in France. C. crowning of Napoleon as Emperor of France. D. freedom of the slaves in the West Indian Islands. 15. In eighteenth-century India, what advantage did the British have over the French in building an army? A. Superior commanding officers B. Superior financial resources C. Larger numbers D. Held more Indian territories 16. The "putting-out" system affected the European economy because it A. increased wages in general. B. allowed for greater overseas investments. C. decreased the available labor force. D. caused a shortage in available raw materials. 17. The British originally went to Asia primarily to A. conquer. B. seek raw materials. C. trade. D. unseat the Dutch. 18. When the French Revolution abolished the monarchy, it was finally replaced by a radical group called the A. National Convention. B. Estates General. C. National Assembly. D. Reign of Terror. 19. Like Robert Clive, Sir Arthur Wellesley was A. one of the founders of the British East India Company. B. a British privateer hired by the French. C. a member of the British Cabinet. D. a British military commander. 20. As a result of the imperial firman of 1717, the British Company was allowed to trade in _______without paying customs. A. Bombay B. Madras C. Bengal D. Bombay, Madras, and Bengal

Obama or Clinton? Read these carefully and give your vote for the best person who can lead us.? ON ABORTION OBAMA Opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007. CLINTON Will sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. Would overturn the "global gag rule," which prohibits Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from talking about abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Voted against the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003. Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007. Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." -ON ECONOMIC STIMULUS OBAMA Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. The plan also includes $45 billion in reserves that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Would provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen. Would extend and expand unemployment insurance CLINTON Would establish a $30 billion emergency housing fund to assist states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures. Would also include a 90-day moratorium on subprime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on subprime mortgages of at least five years. Would provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills. Would invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work. Would accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jump-start green-collar job growth. -EDUCATION OBAMA Would reform No Child Left Behind, ensuring access to high-quality early childhood education programs and child care opportunities, recruit well-qualified and reward expert, accomplished teachers. Make science and math education a national priority. Reduce the high school dropout rate and empower parents to raise healthy and successful children by taking a greater role in their child's education at home and at school. CLINTON Would end No Child Left Behind. Promote early childhood education, including nurse home visitation programs for new parents, quality child care and Head Start and pre-kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. Improve K-12 system by meeting funding promises of IDEA. Recruit outstanding teachers and principals, especially in urban and rural areas. Cut minority dropout rate in half. Expand early-intervention mentoring programs. Identify at-risk youth early and provide $1 billion in intensive interventions. Create a new $3,500 college tax credit and increase the maximum Pell Grant. -ON HEALTH CARE OBAMA Would create a national health insurance program for individuals who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Allows individuals to choose between the new public insurance program or from among private insurance plans that meet certain coverage standards. Requires employers who do not provide health coverage for employees to pay into the national health insurance program. Does not mandate individual coverage for all Americans, but requires coverage for all children. Allows individuals below age 25 to be covered through their parents' plans. Cost estimated between $50 billion and $65 billion, to be paid for by eliminating Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000. CLINTON Mandates individual health insurance coverage for all Americans. Offers federal subsidies for those who cannot afford it. Allows individuals to choose from among several private plans also offered to members of Congress, as well as a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare. Requires insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, and bars insurance companies from charging higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions. Requires large businesses to provide or help pay for employee coverage. Expands Medicaid and federal children's health care programs. Offers tax credits to limit health care premiums to a certain percentage a family's income. Cost estimated at $110 billion annually, to be paid for by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000, as well as by reducing waste and inefficiencies in the current system. Also limits the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits for those making over $250,000 -ON IMMIGRATION OBAMA Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border CLINTON Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. -ON IRAQ OBAMA Opposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006 CLINTON Voted for use of military force in Iraq, but now says she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now." Supports de-authorizing the war. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Supports a phased redeployment -ON SOCIAL SECURITY OBAMA Strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. Believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker earns; Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security. Would work with Congress to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century. CLINTON Opposes all efforts to privatize Social Security. Has stated her plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, and then deal with any long-term challenges. Would support the creation of a bipartisan commission. i hope this helps you a lot. Good day! 1 minute ago - Edit - Delete

Is anti-Americanism a new phenomenon. Or did the WOT just bring out the haters that were always there? http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/the_falseness_of_antiamericanism.htm

If you had to pick between the two great American novels of the 19th century, would you choose Huckleberry? Finn or Moby Dick. Twain lived luxuriously(although bad investments left him bankrupt for awhile, hence the speaking tour, and Melville died a pauper and largely unnoticed. I would choose Moby Dick for the sheer scope of its ambition.

Will Our (US) Economy recover ? Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. March 17, 2005 NewsWithViews.com Contrary to a widespread belief, socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not collapse because of the clever geostrategic maneuvers of the Reagan Administration. Neither did the East Bloc break up because its leaders were incompetents who put into practice the wrong plans. Particular politicians and policies--East or West--had next to nothing to do with it. The East Bloc fell apart--and had to fall apart, no matter what anyone did--because of an obscure principle of economics known as "the impossibility of rational economic calculation under bureaucratic central planning". Socialism failed--and must always fail--because, without prices for goods and services generated by a free market, central planners cannot allocate resources and manpower intelligently. But central planners cannot allow a free market to set prices (otherwise there could be no central planning). In the long run, this self-imposed bureaucratic blindness to the real values of people and things results in monumental waste, the failure of central plans to deliver sound capital investments and advancing standards of living, and finally the collapse of those societies that allow politicians and bureaucrats, rather than free entrepreneurs and workers, to direct the course of economic affairs. Although this principle had been recognized by other economists for almost a century theretofore, it received systematic exposition in Ludwig von Mises's seminal treatise, Socialism, first published in the 1920s. So, during the heyday of central planning from the 1920s to the 1980s, no one should have been unaware of the problem. Nonetheless, the political elite and the intelligentsiia ignored it, just about everywhere. In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, where Stalin and his successors imposed industrial-strength central planning through police-state terrorism and slave labor in the Gulag, the price was higher than in (say) the United States, to which Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to administer only a diluted dose of the same poison. But a price there was, paid as usual by common people. Economic theory also teaches that any scheme of fiat currency and fractional-reserve central banking is just as inherently flawed, incapable of permanent existence, and inevitably doomed to disaster as all-around, full-blown socialism, because fractional-reserve central banking systematically subverts the free market's structure of prices through expansion of currency and credit--which results in redistribution of wealth, misallocation of scarce capital, and collapse in either depression or hyperinflation followed by depression. This is no new insight. The problems fractional-reserve banking causes were widely discussed in the 1800s; and the whole subject of political versus free-market money was exhaustively examined by Ludwig von Mises, in his treatise The Theory of Money and Credit, first published in the 1920s. (Probably the best book on this subject now available for the average reader is Murray Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking.) But, throughout the Western world during the 1900s and even unto the present moment, the political elite, high finance and big business, and their hired intelligentsiia have generally ignored these problems--doubtlessly because irredeemable currency and fractional-reserve central banking have served their short-term interests, and the costs of the system have always been paid by picking the pockets of the common man. For this country's system of fractional-reserve central banking, though, Americans cannot blame some foreign dictator such as Stalin, but instead need to indict their own home-grown usurpers and tyrants: primarily, Presidents Woodrow Wilson (who signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913), Franklin Roosevelt (who outlawed private possession of gold for use as currency in 1933-1934), and Lyndon Johnson (who repudiated the government's promise to redeem its paper currency in silver coin in 1967-1968). Some people also assign a large share of responsibility to Richard Nixon, who terminated redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold for foreign banks in 1971. This, however, is unfair. By "closing the gold window", Nixon extricated this country from an especially expensive variety of parasitism by the Federal Reserve System: its ability to prop up the value of Federal Reserve Notes by looting America's gold reserves. Indeed, such was Nixon’s legal duty. Because the Federal Reserve System as a whole is unconstitutional, paying out this nation's gold in redemption of Federal Reserve Notes is unconstitutional, too. (Nixon, of course, was far from being a constitutionalist. But, as folk wisdom teaches, "God writes straight with crooked lines".) In the case of the Federal Reserve, economic history all too strongly confirms economic theory. In 1913, the Federal Reserve's touts predicted that it would allow bankers and politicians to "manage" currency "scientifically", and thereby to end business cycles, eliminate inflation, and forefend depressions. Yet, the country soon suffered a sharp, albeit short depression in 1920-1921, followed by the horrendous collapses of the stock market and the banks in 1929-1933, and the Great Depression that festered for the remainder of the 1930s. And since World War II, Federal Reserve Notes have lost more than 90% of their purchasing power--which is a serious consequence of inflation by any reasonable standard

Is thye political leadership a Myth ?? more cost than benefit ?? Elections? In this dreadful election season, many politicians have promised to "lead us into the future." I can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by the political class of gangsters, marauders, looters, and liars. Even the most honest and well-intended among them are powerless to improve the world in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power. Politicians haven't the capacity to lead whole societies anywhere. They are outclassed and outrun by trends in the world economy that are beyond the ability of the political class to control or direct. The market economy—globalized, enormously powerful, breathtaking in scope and breadth—is remaking the world in ways that far surpass any existing political development in the US, from the crafted blather of Congressional hearings on this or that to the mad rush to grab the presidential brass rings. We are living through changes that may appear slow if observed from the point of view of the daily headlines, but which are momentously fast and completely transforming when looked at globally and from the point of view of years and decades into the future. These developments are going to bring about surprising political shifts, profound upsets in rooted cultural assumptions, and an eventual and merciful end to the US imperium. These changes will touch everyone in ways that will be both stunning and glorious for average Americans, and deeply disturbing for the American regime that aspires to unchallenged global hegemony. What is the underlying cause? The unleashing of human energies in nations that have been isolated, regimented, and closed for centuries. China, Malaysia, India, the countries of Latin America, and the new economies of Eastern Europe, among many others, are expanding at as much as twice the rate of American and European markets. This is not only remaking their nations, but the way we perceive the geographical distribution of wealth and power. Over time, and extended far into the future, this trend is going to mean dramatic upheavals in the way Americans perceive their role in the world. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. The people in these emerging countries, confronted with new economic opportunities, are making the fruits of their labors, assisted by investments by US firms, available to American consumers, driving down prices and driving up the quality of everyday goods and services consumed by Americans. This phenomenon has been the saving grace of the US economy for a decade, and, in the future, it will become integral to our very lives. To get a glimpse of the change, take a tour of the local Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world, and take note of the stunning availability of a huge range of consumer goods at very low prices. Note too that such an array would be inconceivable without the work of international trade. From bicycles and electronics to foodstuffs and flowers, we find the shelves dominated by goods that were produced, in part or in whole, by countries outside US borders, and to this we owe the low prices and the quality that accords with US consumer preferences. Now, Wal-Mart isn't on some campaign to become the leading importer; it is only looking to make available to consumers all the things they want at the lowest possible prices. Where they find these goods is outside the US, where we find ever more comparative advantages. Every retailer in the world is taking notice of this fact, studying the case of Wal-Mart to see how and why it so quickly became the dominant player in the world economy. Its example of seeing both the wholesale and retail market as global in scope—all in the interest of consumer service—has taught the entire business class that nationalism and parochialism are losing propositions. The left may continue to rail against this company, and the right may continue to warn of its dangers to local culture and life, but the example is there for all to see. Average people love this company. It is all old-fashioned consumer service combined with a global reach to bring to average people things that improve their lot in life. Wal-Mart may eventually go the way of so many companies, displaced by some other firm that knows how to do it even better. The point is the model from which it is working. It is a global model focused on the individual buyer, and it works its wonders by depending on the voluntary decisions of average people. The nation state as such plays no part in its calculus, and this has proven to be the winning ticket. So it will continue to be. What about the economic impact? Is marketing all these wares to the world a danger? One might be initially alarmed by this, until one considers the savings to the consumer. For every dime saved in consumer prices, one more dime is made available for other pursuits, whether savings, consumption, or investment. It is this fact which is subsidizing American prosperity right now. Far from being a sign that America has lost its edge, it constitutes the world's gift to American consumers. The trade is mutually beneficial, producing winners on all sides, with the only losers being those American producers who can't seem to drive their costs down low enough to compete in the world marketplace. It is because of this, and despite the constant attempts by central banks to inflate the currency, that prices are continuing to fall for consumer goods. People who have noted these trends say that we should panic that there won't be any jobs left for Americans to do. What this forgets is the reality of scarcity in the world, which implies that there are always and everywhere jobs to do because there are always and everywhere unmet needs. Specialization and the division of labor permits Americans to produce most efficiently in a way that is integral to world demand and not waste time and resources in jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. This does indeed mean a change in world patterns of production, but the market will manage the change with minimum disruption, as it has for the last several hundred years. For the developing world, it means something far more dramatic: a nearly complete abandonment of traditional economic pursuits that were imposed on them by virtue of their previous isolation from the capitalist West. The point is not that their economies are free or have been completely unleashed from the chains of the state. The US and Western Europe, in many respects, remain the most free economies. What matters here is the direction of change. Whereas the US and Europe are increasingly controlled, countries such as China, India, Romania, Poland, Thailand, and many others, are far less controlled than they once were. This has unleashed pent-up human energies and made a fantastic difference in the ability of these people to integrate themselves into the worldwide division of labor. This has meant rising incomes, better diets, less starvation, less disease, better sanitation, falling infant mortality, much longer lifespans, and ever more economic opportunities for work and investment. The fate of these economies has two major links to that of American citizens: in their capacity as consumers, they have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and, as investors, many portfolios of US investors are heavily invested in these emerging economies. The quality of life in these distant lands is increasing in ways that would have been unimaginable even a decade ago, with information technologies made available by the private sector coming into the hands of a new generation that relies on cell phones and high-speed web access, where their parents struggled barely to survive. The lifespan in China alone has risen from 25 years to 65 years in the course of a century. It also means more revenue for the governments of these countries, which, if driven to build up militaries to fend off US political influence, could eventually challenge the supremacy of the US in world public affairs. Again, this is nothing to regret. A world dominated by a single superpower is a gravely dangerous place, especially when that power is irresponsibly managed (and, some would say, is managed by maniacs). A decline in the power, might, and influence of the US is not the same thing as a decline in America; quite the opposite. The only real downside is the transition: the US government may increasingly behave like a dying and rabid animal, posing a danger to its random victims. But once you hear the "thud" of the final fall, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous than ever before. In the meantime, political trends in the US will become increasingly irrelevant, despite appearances. Until recently, Americans thought of themselves as a self-contained people with a nationally bound culture and economy that can be conceptualized and managed in the way that civics texts describe. This is on the verge of being impossible. The managerial class of the regime will continue to pose as experts and top-flight managers, but old assumptions about government are being shredded. Trends on this scale reduce the bellowing of politicians for protection to mere peeps. There is a tendency on the part of everyone to judge a historical moment by our own daily affairs and in relation only to the headlines that dominate the news. Economic analysis takes a much broader view to consider the overall impact of billions of people in many lands over a long period of time. It is through examining these trends that we can see that we are entering into a new world of global economic expansion that will rout any attempt to keep it at bay. Now, clearly, this will not occur without periods of crisis, particularly so long as the world is on a dollar standard and governments are still at work bringing calamity wherever they can. Take a look at where and how the products you use every day are made. Therein lies a remarkable story of the genius of entrepreneurship, the capacity for the world economy to manage itself and overcome ten thousand barriers, and the direction we are headed. It is a world in which consumers and producers from all nations can join hands in praise of the networks that draw them together, and against their common enemy: governments that would stand in the way. To understand the world being recreated before us, we must constantly keep this principle in our mind: trade based on ownership is always and everywhere mutually beneficial. Within the institution of trade—whether on the most local level or the global level—we find the key to peace, prosperity, and human flourishing. If we understand this, we have no reason to fear our fate except to the extent that anyone anywhere dares to interfere. If we understand this, we can see why being led into the future by the political class is something we should neither desire nor expect.

Do Turkeys Enjoy Thanksgiving? Like Old Imperialism, New Imperialism relies for its success on a network of agents - corrupt local elites who service Empire. We all know the sordid story of Enron in India. The then-Maharashtra government signed a power purchase agreement that gave Enron profits that amounted to 60 percent of India's entire rural development budget. A single American company was guaranteed a profit equivalent to funds for infrastructural development for about 500 million people! Unlike in the old days, the New Imperialist doesn't need to trudge around the tropics risking malaria or diarrhea or early death. New Imperialism can be conducted on e-mail. The vulgar, hands-on racism of Old Imperialism is outdated. The cornerstone of New Imperialism is New Racism. The best allegory for New Racism is the tradition of "turkey pardoning" in the United States. Every year since 1947, the National Turkey Federation has presented the US President with a turkey for Thanksgiving. Every year, in a show of ceremonial magnanimity, the President spares that particular bird (and eats another one). After receiving the presidential pardon, the Chosen One is sent to Frying Pan Park in Virginia to live out its natural life. The rest of the 50 million turkeys raised for Thanksgiving are slaughtered and eaten on Thanksgiving Day. ConAgra Foods, the company that has won the Presidential Turkey contract, says it trains the lucky birds to be sociable, to interact with dignitaries, school children and the press. (Soon they'll even speak English!) That's how New Racism in the corporate era works. A few carefully bred turkeys - the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy immigrants, investment bankers, the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, some singers, some writers (like myself) - are given absolution and a pass to Frying Pan Park. The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections cut, and die of AIDS. Basically they're for the pot. But the Fortunate Fowls in Frying Pan Park are doing fine. Some of them even work for the IMF and the WTO - so who can accuse those organizations of being antiturkey? Some serve as board members on the Turkey Choosing Committee - so who can say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it! Who can say the poor are anti-corporate globalization? There's a stampede to get into Frying Pan Park. So what if most perish on the way? As part of the project of New Racism we also have New Genocide. New Genocide in this new era of economic interdependence can be facilitated by economic sanctions. New Genocide means creating conditions that lead to mass death without actually going out and killing people. Denis Halliday, who was the UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq between 1997 and 1998 (after which he resigned in disgust), used the term genocide to describe the sanctions in Iraq. In Iraq the sanctions outdid Saddam Hussein's best efforts by claiming more than half a million children's lives. In the new era, apartheid as formal policy is antiquated and unnecessary. International instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex system of multilateral trade laws and financial agreements that keep the poor in their bantustans anyway. Its whole purpose is to institutionalize inequity. Why else would it be that the US taxes a garment made by a Bangladeshi manufacturer twenty times more than a garment made in Britain? Why else would it be that countries that grow cocoa beans, like the Ivory Coast and Ghana, are taxed out of the market if they try to turn it into chocolate? Why else would it be that countries that grow 90 percent of the world's cocoa beans produce only 5 percent of the world's chocolate? Why else would it be that rich countries that spend over a billion dollars a day on subsidies to farmers demand that poor countries like India withdraw all agricultural subsidies, including subsidized electricity? Why else would it be that after having been plundered by colonizing regimes for more than half a century, former colonies are steeped in debt to those same regimes and repay them some $382 billion a year?