Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is another tactic used by radicalS. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. A radical marxist individual or group, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about the opposition's views. It is used to increase the general possibility of switching sides among the current electorate; or to maintain leverage over a current political partner who could potentially become a rival.
FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
In response to a growing number of homeowners forgoing the use of real estate agent services during the sale of their homes, national and regional real estate boards have adopted a strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Ads reinforce consumers' anxiety over legal paperwork, and suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful; that consumers can't possibly learn; and that it would be much safer to leave the process to a real estate agent. I guess that the poor public is just too stupid to do anything according to the elite.
Appeal to fear FUD is now often used in many contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics one side can accuse the other of using FUD to obscure the issues. For example, critics of George W. Bush accused Bush's supporters, most notably the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor", and "weapons of mass destruction". This tactic is widespread and is used often; what works successfully gets picked up and repeated by others.
Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In the UK this technique is better known as "rent-a-crowd" after the successful "rent-a-crate" business. US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, believed to have coined the term, was quoted by the Washington Post in 1985 using it to describe a "mountain of cards and letters" sent to his Senate office to promote insurance industry interests, which Bentsen dismissed as "generated mail."
The National Smokers Alliance, an early astroturf group created by Burson-Marsteller on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris, worked to influence Federal legislation in 1995 by organizing mailings and running a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to laws aimed at discouraging teens from starting to smoke.
In 1998, a combination of television ads and phone-banks were used to simulate "grassroots" opposition to a bill aimed at discouraging teenage smoking. According to The New York Times, "Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice."
Apparent "grass-roots" letters favoring Democratic Party policies appearing in local newspapers around the US were denounced as "astroturf" when Google searches revealed that identical letters were printed with different (local) signatures. The signers were electronically submitting pre-written letters from a political website that offered help for sending one of their letters to a local paper. A similar automated email employed by MoveOn.org in 2004 to support Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film resulted in at least 22 form letters appearing in local papers.
Black propaganda is information that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. Most astroturfing is black propaganda in that the identity of the source is falsified. However, the ostensible source of the evidence planted is usually not a grassroots organization. When black propaganda uses the same means as astroturfing, the distinction is less clear, as in the case of forged letters being sent to congressman Tom Perriello by a Washington lobbying firm working against 2009 clean energy legislation.
Journalist Ben Smith of The Politico has observed, "Interest groups across the spectrum have grown expert at locating, enraging and turning out authentic Americans. And the operatives behind the crowds say there's nothing wrong with a practice as old as American politics." Regarding the 2009 health care debate, author and blogger Ryan Sager has argued in a New York Times editorial: "Organizing isn't cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics."
In business, astroturfing is one form of stealth marketing, which can include the manipulation of viral marketing. Several examples are described as "undercover marketing" in the documentary ‘The Corporation’. The term "astroturfing" is also used to describe public relations activities aimed at "falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of an orchestrated and disguised public relations exercise; designed to give the impression of spontaneous support for an idea, product, company, or service." According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Social Media Guidelines, which cautions members that an astroturfing campaign is "self-evidently likely to contradict the CIPR Code."
It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low. Groups may use a boiler room full of telephones and computers where hired activists locate people and groups who create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. The radicals method of operation is “use every means possible to accomplish the objective” no matter what the reaction.
A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by fusion with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging. Radicals use this technique constantly, in fact it is their first mode of attack when confronted with something that they can not answer or explain, for example Govenor Palin.
Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead a political opponent as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Its techniques may also be found in politics and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor.
These are only a small sample of the various dirty tricks that the left has developed and used over and over for decades. These were all used in one form or another when I was young and dumb and believed the liberal propaganda. You would think that the public would catch on but the radicals are very sly and deceptive and it is difficult to catch them with proof. Plus the compliant news media treats everything coming from the radical marxists as fact.
If you watch closely you will see all of these types of deception at play when a radical group attempts to persuade the general public. If you want to learn more about these radical groups go to this website for information http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This is the best site on the web for good information concerning many radical groups and explains how they are funded. If you are a liberal, who can think for yourself, then you will be enlightened to the point of joining the ranks of the independent voters as I did!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 1
As I have stated before I was at one time a true believer in the liberal tripe that was presented as the democratic platform. I saw all the political tricks that they used to promote themselves as the defender of the common man. Much later I began to understand that democrats could care less about the common man and were more concerned about votes, votes and more votes. Therefore, liberals have developed a vast array of political tactics to influence these votes. The following are a few of these tactics used by liberals.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Do Public-sector Unions contribute to state budget problems?
Last week, I had lunch with a friend and we were talking about the pressures felt by public-sector unions as states attempt to balance their budgets. "If we get a union protest coming here from Wisconsin," my friend said, "we're in trouble." Ah, yes. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's successful attempt to break the back of public-sector unions is the current front in the battle over public-sector pay and compensation. Some tend to cast this as a battle of good vs. evil (although which side is which role depends on who you're talking to). Having been in public education for over 30 years I can say without reservation that I never believed in teacher unions and never belonged to one. I have always believed that teachers were about children and not money. In fact I passed a rather lucrative opportunity when I selected education as my profession.
So I thought it was refreshing to read a column in the usually liberal New York Times that offered a thoughtful and nuanced look at the issues at stake. There are several important points involved and one has to do with an inherent problem with public-sector unions, but the other point is that states' budget problems are far bigger than just employee annual compensation. The elephant in the room so to speak is the states' unfunded liabilities with the public retirement funds and Healthcare. These two monsters are going to put those states, that did not set aside funds to cover such massive programs, into bankruptcy.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Governor Walker's side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack. That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest".
Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don't have that luxury.
The debt problems before the tax payers are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain current deficits, therefore, we have to consider the retirement and healthcare packages. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises".
So if the New York Times prints an article that is not in total agreement with the labor unions them you know that unions are in difficulty. However, it is apparent that one factor still remains and is very important and that is tax payers don't have a place at the bargaining table and they are expected to pay the bill. Seems like a situation of taxation without representation!
Recently congress was requesting files from Obama and he refused. Stating that this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming executive privilege.
On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an Administration's records. Therefore; it is possible that our new president could do the same and repeal or change President Kennedys Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions. This would in effect "kill the bill" and do away with or change public unions as we know them today.
There are a large number of people who think that pay and benefit increases for public unions must be decided by a vote of the electorate. This would take congress out of the equation and make it impossible to show favor to gain votes! Another item to change is, not allowing public unions to donate to political parties with the membership dues. Either idea would help reduce the current problems that exist within public sector unions.
So I thought it was refreshing to read a column in the usually liberal New York Times that offered a thoughtful and nuanced look at the issues at stake. There are several important points involved and one has to do with an inherent problem with public-sector unions, but the other point is that states' budget problems are far bigger than just employee annual compensation. The elephant in the room so to speak is the states' unfunded liabilities with the public retirement funds and Healthcare. These two monsters are going to put those states, that did not set aside funds to cover such massive programs, into bankruptcy.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Governor Walker's side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack. That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest".
Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don't have that luxury.
The debt problems before the tax payers are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain current deficits, therefore, we have to consider the retirement and healthcare packages. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises".
So if the New York Times prints an article that is not in total agreement with the labor unions them you know that unions are in difficulty. However, it is apparent that one factor still remains and is very important and that is tax payers don't have a place at the bargaining table and they are expected to pay the bill. Seems like a situation of taxation without representation!
Recently congress was requesting files from Obama and he refused. Stating that this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming executive privilege.
On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an Administration's records. Therefore; it is possible that our new president could do the same and repeal or change President Kennedys Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions. This would in effect "kill the bill" and do away with or change public unions as we know them today.
There are a large number of people who think that pay and benefit increases for public unions must be decided by a vote of the electorate. This would take congress out of the equation and make it impossible to show favor to gain votes! Another item to change is, not allowing public unions to donate to political parties with the membership dues. Either idea would help reduce the current problems that exist within public sector unions.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Radical islamism is really a political ideology
It is a known fact that all muslims are not radical islamists; however, there are enough that we must stay vigilant at all times! Several experts tell us that only 5% to 13% of all muslims are radical islamists; therefore, if you do the math then we are dealing with about 91 million terrorists!!! And to think that we were so concerned while only dealing with a religion of peace!
Many liberals would have you believe that Christians are the oppressors and muslims are the victims! I suggest that they talk to Egyptian Coptic Christians or Iraqi Christians! لعدة أشهر الإسلاميين المتشددين قد يقتلون "المسيحيين العراقيين" وقد اضطر طار إلى البلد أو يعانون من الموت. Which is Arabic and it states "For several months radical islamists have been killing Iraqi Christians and they have been forced to flew the country or suffer death."
Egyptian Coptics have suffered from Egyptian muslims and even the police. Christians in Turkey have also suffered from radical muslims but they remain diligent and continue their goal of telling the people there about Jesus Christ even though it is definitely dangerous for these heroic Christians. America should be proud of these missionaries who are fearless in their mission to spread the Word of God in a muslim country!
What is really important is the fact that the early Christian church in Turkey was based upon the early Christian word imparted when Paul and others passed through that area and many Christian churches were started as a result.
Another important fact for Christians to realize is that the first Ecumenical Councils were made at Nicea (Iznik today) in the Marmara Region of Turkey, between Bursa and Istanbul. Also, the Orthodox Byzantine Church was officially started in Turkey when the country was mainly muslim. The entire area, although now muslin, was once Christian and is important to the Christian church. Once the area was invaded by the Ottoman Empire the killings of Christians began and has not stopped.
A 2007 Pew Research Study shows that a small percentage of American muslims effectively support Osama Ben laden. If you use the Pew Research percentage of 5%. and since 2.1 million muslims live in the United States that means there could be 117,500 supporters of violent terrorism! What this really means is that there are many, many terrorists already here and we don't know who they are and when they will strike next!
The Lame Street Media only has good things to say about muslins and always prints the positive. In fact the muslims are presented as the religion of peace and goodwill, yet, the mass killing of Christians goes on in muslim countries with very little reporting by the lame street media! WE need to stay alert and think positive about our heroes in the military because they are the only ones standing between us and the jihadists.
There is a way to defeat the islamists and that is by separating islamism from religion and begin to call it what it really is, a political ideology! A clear realization of the fact that islamism is an ideology and not a religion will help the whole question from a variety of difficulties.
As stated by Mr. Mozaffari, who is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, “In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics”. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism.
The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia”.
Mr. Mozaffari also states “During the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with islamists leads nowhere. Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. If dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure!
Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect-- as was the case with the Taliban -- war should not be excluded as a last resort”. Therefore, I again say that the only guard against the Jihadists will be our strong military! God bless them all!
Many liberals would have you believe that Christians are the oppressors and muslims are the victims! I suggest that they talk to Egyptian Coptic Christians or Iraqi Christians! لعدة أشهر الإسلاميين المتشددين قد يقتلون "المسيحيين العراقيين" وقد اضطر طار إلى البلد أو يعانون من الموت. Which is Arabic and it states "For several months radical islamists have been killing Iraqi Christians and they have been forced to flew the country or suffer death."
Egyptian Coptics have suffered from Egyptian muslims and even the police. Christians in Turkey have also suffered from radical muslims but they remain diligent and continue their goal of telling the people there about Jesus Christ even though it is definitely dangerous for these heroic Christians. America should be proud of these missionaries who are fearless in their mission to spread the Word of God in a muslim country!
What is really important is the fact that the early Christian church in Turkey was based upon the early Christian word imparted when Paul and others passed through that area and many Christian churches were started as a result.
Another important fact for Christians to realize is that the first Ecumenical Councils were made at Nicea (Iznik today) in the Marmara Region of Turkey, between Bursa and Istanbul. Also, the Orthodox Byzantine Church was officially started in Turkey when the country was mainly muslim. The entire area, although now muslin, was once Christian and is important to the Christian church. Once the area was invaded by the Ottoman Empire the killings of Christians began and has not stopped.
A 2007 Pew Research Study shows that a small percentage of American muslims effectively support Osama Ben laden. If you use the Pew Research percentage of 5%. and since 2.1 million muslims live in the United States that means there could be 117,500 supporters of violent terrorism! What this really means is that there are many, many terrorists already here and we don't know who they are and when they will strike next!
The Lame Street Media only has good things to say about muslins and always prints the positive. In fact the muslims are presented as the religion of peace and goodwill, yet, the mass killing of Christians goes on in muslim countries with very little reporting by the lame street media! WE need to stay alert and think positive about our heroes in the military because they are the only ones standing between us and the jihadists.
There is a way to defeat the islamists and that is by separating islamism from religion and begin to call it what it really is, a political ideology! A clear realization of the fact that islamism is an ideology and not a religion will help the whole question from a variety of difficulties.
As stated by Mr. Mozaffari, who is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, “In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics”. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism.
The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia”.
Mr. Mozaffari also states “During the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with islamists leads nowhere. Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. If dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure!
Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect-- as was the case with the Taliban -- war should not be excluded as a last resort”. Therefore, I again say that the only guard against the Jihadists will be our strong military! God bless them all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)